Space Criminology: Analysing Human Relationships with Outer Space (Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology) 3031399110, 9783031399114

Citation preview

e

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN GREEN CRIMINOLOGY

Space Criminology Analysing Human Relationships with Outer Space Jack Lampkin · Rob White

Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology

Series Editors Angus Nurse Nottingham Trent University Nottingham, UK Rob White School of Social Sciences University of Tasmania Hobart, TAS, Australia Melissa Jarrell Department of Social, Cultural, and Justice Studies University of Tennessee Chattanooga, TN, USA

Criminologists have increasingly become involved and interested in environmental issues to the extent that the term Green Criminology is now recognised as a distinct subgenre of criminology. Within this unique area of scholarly activity, researchers consider not just harms to the environment, but also the links between green crimes and other forms of crime, including organised crime's movement into the illegal trade in wildlife or the links between domestic animal abuse and spousal abuse and more serious forms of offending such as serial killing. This series will provide a forum for new works and new ideas in green criminology for both academics and practitioners working in the field, with two primary aims: to provide contemporary theoretical and practice-based analysis of green criminology and environmental issues relating to the development of and enforcement of environmental laws, environmental criminality, policy relating to environmental harms and harms committed against non-­ human animals and situating environmental harms within the context of wider social harms; and to explore and debate new contemporary issues in green criminology including ecological, environmental and species justice concerns and the better integration of a green criminological approach within mainstream criminal justice. The series will reflect the range and depth of high-quality research and scholarship in this burgeoning area, combining contributions from established scholars wishing to explore new topics and recent entrants who are breaking new ground.

Jack Lampkin • Rob White

Space Criminology Analysing Human Relationships with Outer Space

Jack Lampkin York Business School York St John University York, North Yorkshire, UK

Rob White School of Social Sciences University of Tasmania Sandy Bay, TAS, Australia

Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology ISBN 978-3-031-39911-4    ISBN 978-3-031-39912-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39912-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: ‘aesthetically pleasing’ creative image from Alamy/Getty to go into the Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology series template This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Foreword

Outer space has always been a source of wonder for human societies. The stars above are majestic, inspiring, beautiful, and tantalising. This wonder has recently coincided with technological advancement to create a situation whereby powerful countries, companies, and CEOs are now in a position to exploit outer space. Such exploitation takes many forms such as space tourism, space mining, or the accrual of space junk. Prior to the launch of the first artificial satellite in 1957, outer space remained a void untouched by human civilisations. In particular, the lunar and Martian environments were pristine, unspoiled, natural terrains, lucky to have formed and evolved since their creation roughly 4.5 billion years ago. Today, the lunar and Martian environments have experienced many human interactions resulting in the creation of space junk that will remain in situ indefinitely. Even more worryingly, humans have plans to exploit these environments even more in the near future. The lunar and Martian settings, in particular, are being prioritised for a vast array of both scientific and commercial activities. These interactions will continue to harm the outer space environment in a myriad of different ways. Ultimately, if protective and legal measures are not enforced quickly, the outer space environment will become contaminated with more human materials and exploited for financially valuable resources. The discipline of criminology has historically been focussed on crime and offending behaviour. However, contemporary advancements in v

vi Foreword

critical, radical, and green criminologies have expanded the scope of the discipline to include a recognition of harm as a legitimate area of criminological enquiry. This is because harmful human actions and behaviours, while legal, may be just as damaging to human societies as illegal actions and behaviours. Space criminology is a perfect example of this new wave of criminological thinking. The law regarding outer space is weak, fragmented, and has not prevented the development of socially and environmentally destructive behaviours occurring in outer space, or related to space exploration activities. The old criminology would have undoubtedly perceived of many space criminological issues as beyond the remit of criminology. The relatively modern inclusion of harm with criminology has facilitated the discussion of harmful behaviours that would once have been ignored. Consequently, space criminology can be seen as operating at the forefront of criminological thinking. It continues to push the boundaries of criminological discourse for the betterment of contemporary human societies. Space criminology will continue to examine anthropogenic relationships with outer space environments, putting human safety and environmental health at the centre of study. In 2019 I wrote an article calling for an ‘astro-green criminology’ to address environmentally harmful human actions in outer space. This call has been expanded recently by Jack Lampkin and Rob White in this book and other influential publications. Astro-green issues (space mining, orbital debris, anthropogenic extraterrestrial contamination) are one part of the criminological equation relating to outer space and they are welcome additions to the broader remit of a space criminology. However, it is wonderful also to read in this book about the development and expansion of space criminological issues to also include non-environmental human activities like money laundering, interpersonal crimes, theft, and space warfare. These are very much orthodox criminological issues, and they deserve to be encompassed within a space criminology. The amalgamation of ‘green’ and ‘orthodox’ criminological issues into a single, unified space criminological perspective is both welcomed and long overdue. Furthermore, such a combination is clearly suitable for outer space discussions as many criminological (‘crime’) and zemiological (‘harm’) issues overlap. For instance, bringing back lunar regolith to

 Foreword 

vii

Earth can be seen as a green criminological issue, and the theft and re-sale of that material on illicit markets is an obvious conventional criminological problem. I hope that this book ignites excitement and interest about space criminology in the minds of academics, students, space practitioners, and the general public. In doing so, critical analysis and debate about harmful human-space interactions will emerge, forcing governments, policy-­ makers, and practitioners to change the way they think and engage with outer space. This is in the best interests of both humanity and the unique outer space realm as a whole. Only then will we ensure that—as a species—we refrain from making the same mistakes in outer space as we have already made on Planet Earth. Toin University of Yokohama Yokohama, Japan

Noriyoshi Takemura

Acknowledgements

This project has benefited from the support and encouragement of many people. Foremost amongst these, for Jack, have been Noriyoshi Takemura and Sarah Cunningham who were instrumental in devising the idea of the book and who provided vital direction for its potential contents. For Rob, conversations and contemplations with Vicky Nagy and Rebecca Kaiser have provided inspiration and illustration. To these colleagues and friends, among others, we say ‘thank you’. We are grateful as well to Josie Taylor and the rest of the team at Palgrave for publishing cutting-edge work of this nature with their friendly and patient professionalism. We wish to dedicate this book to Henry, Jack’s son—we are doing what we can to create the best of all worlds, including off-worlds, because the future ultimately belongs to him.

ix

Contents

1 S  pace Crime  1 2 The Global Space Industry 25 3 S  pace Mining 49 4 S  pace Junk 71 5 P  olluting New Spaces 93 6 Living and Working in Space121 7 P  olicing Space Crimes143 8 S  pace Criminology167 I ndex195

xi

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 The spectrum of space expansionism Fig. 4.1 Orbital debris decay including geostationary orbit and low Earth orbit. (Source: https://spaceexplored.com/2022/02/17/ starlink-­expanding-­coming-­to-­dragon-­capsule-­on-­polaris-­ dawn-­but-­nasa-­has-­concerns-­about-­the-­constellation/)

39

75

xiii

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Key articles of the outer space treaty 8 Table 2.1 Space participation in orbital launches 2018–2022 by country/agency31 Table 2.2 Gross domestic product per country 36 Table 2.3 Survivalist, cosmologist, conservationist, and preservationist accounts of space expansionism 42 Table 3.1 Active orbiters around Mars 60 Table 3.2 Advantages and disadvantages of space mining 67 Table 4.1 Sources of orbital debris from confirmed fragmentation events 76 Table 4.2 Options for dealing with orbital debris 84 Table 4.3 Satellite types, functions, and weights 85 Table 4.4 Twenty-first century anti-satellite testing 87 Table 5.1 Missions to successfully reach Mercury 104 Table 5.2 Missions to successfully reach Venus 105 Table 5.3 Missions to successfully reach Mars 109 Table 5.4 Missions to reach Jupiter and beyond 114 Table 8.1 Key dimensions of space criminology 175 Table 8.2 Elements of space horizon scanning 187

xv

List of Boxes

Box 1.1 Box 1.2 Box 1.3 Box 2.1 Box 3.1 Box 3.2 Box 3.3 Box 6.1 Box 6.2 Box 7.1 Box 7.2 Box 7.3 Box 7.4 Box 8.1 Box 8.2

The Outer Space Treaty  The Likelihood of Other Life Declaration of the Rights of the Moon Humans in Relation to the Extraterrestrial Asteroid Missions Mars Exploration Missions Phobos Landing and Sample Return Mission Unequal Access to and Utilisation of Space Resources Trauma and Trauma-Informed Care A Terrestrial Space-Related Crime Problems for Criminal Justice in Outer Space Challenges for Crime Scene Investigation in Outer Space Plans for Outer Space Human Expansion and Colonisation Toward a Space Zemiology War and Crime in Outer Space

7 15 20 43 57 58 62 125 138 146 150 153 159 171 180

xvii

1 Space Crime

Introduction This book is constructed around the idea of ‘space criminology’. Specifically, attention is given to existing and potential transgressions by human actors, frequently acting on behalf of nation-states and/or corporations, that bring harm to landscapes, ecosystems, plant and animal species, and humans either in outer space or in Earth-based activities linked to outer space. We use the title ‘space criminology’ advisedly. The main reason is to highlight its novelty as an emergent area of criminological interest. Our intention is not, however, to suggest a new variation or theory or perspective within or of criminology as such. Mainstream criminological concepts and approaches are central to much of our analysis (focusing on the nature and dynamics of crime and crime control), including insights offered by established streams of criminology such as ‘green criminology’ and ‘critical criminology’ (e.g., ecocentric notions of value and harm, and analyses of intersecting relations of power). This chapter discusses the concepts of ‘space’ and ‘harm’, with particular focus on space ‘crime’. The book’s final chapter considers in greater

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Lampkin, R. White, Space Criminology, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39912-1_1

1

2 

J. Lampkin and R. White

depth the contours of space criminology and the conceptual and practical elements constitutive of this perspective. Of course, the challenge of a book of this nature is that very little ‘space crime’ has actually occurred in the history of humankind, at least as conventionally understood. Moreover, what has happened has tended to go under the radar of public comment and concern. Part of the intention of this work, therefore, is to raise consciousness about emerging issues, as well as begin the process of clarifying the terms and framing of debates over space crime. The chapter lays the groundwork for later discussions of specific events, trends, and controversies. It points to a typology of space crimes and harms by first considering what ‘space’ refers to and then to harm conceptions of crime. At the centre of space crime research is the question of power and interests. This is reflected in discussions of crimes of the powerful and is a major theme of the present book. The chapter concludes with a discussion of eco-justice conceptions of crime and victimisation, and the exploitation and instrumentalism associated with resource use in outer space.

Background to the Issues How crime is defined and viewed varies depending on how we answer the question ‘what is crime?’. There are in fact many diverse conceptions of crime, each of which reflects a different scientific and ideological viewpoint (White et al., 2023). As conventionally understood, ‘crime’ is what the law says it is—namely, if an act (or omission) is named in legislation as a crime, then that crime exists. As such, it is subject to investigation and prosecution by the state in the event of its occurrence. The key purposes of criminal law are encapsulated in three broad objectives (Findlay et al., 2005): • Moral wrongness—the criminal law is a vital instrument in deterring immoral behaviour • Individual autonomy—the criminal law should only be used against behaviour that injures the rights and interests of other people (‘harms to others’ approach)

1  Space Crime 

3

• Community welfare—the principal purpose of criminal law is to protect the physical wellbeing of members of a community. Importantly, the different reasons or purposes are sometimes in conflict with each other. The rationale behind any specific criminal law is framed in relation to specific purposes that, in turn, reflect specific ideological or philosophical differences. Who decides this is fundamental to space law and order. In most cases, according to criminal law, the intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime. Conduct elements of a crime refer to the accused’s conduct (actus reus) that caused the crime. The prohibited conduct must have been performed voluntarily (e.g., not being forced to do it, not doing it while sleepwalking). The mental element of a crime refers to a determination that the accused’s conduct was accompanied by a prescribed state of mind (mens rea). This reflects the idea that people ought to be judged by their free choice of action. In some instances, however, the law will ignore the subjective approach (which focuses on the mental element) in favour of arguments based on the community welfare grounds of ‘public interest’ (particularly if future crime is to be prevented or reduced). This is particularly the case, for example, in regard to environmental offences. The issues of liability and the mental element are likewise of interest to the student of harms in outer space. Again, the seriousness of the harm and new ways of conceptualising harm come to the fore in explorations of the nature and dynamics of space crime.

Space Harms The objective of space criminology is to describe and analyse various kinds of harm, many of which, but not all, are deemed to be ‘criminal’ in the eyes of the law. Thematically, we approach this issue by centring the discussions around resource use, involving extraction, contamination, and transformation. These harms are grounded in existing practices, such as the phenomenon of space junk. The book traces the general trends and patterns of these crimes and explores their social dynamics and

4 

J. Lampkin and R. White

consequences. Of importance is the critical influence of social difference in determining who commits which kinds of crime and how this influences the response of both the state and other social groups. Our concern in this chapter also includes preliminary description of other kinds of crimes, from property crime to state crime. The emphasis is on tracing the contours of social harm associated with specific acts. We want to know the prevalence of certain types of behaviour, who engages in this behaviour, and how we might best explain specific crimes as social phenomena. Much of this is, of course, speculative. There simply is not enough empirical evidence or research, yet, from which to undertake this kind of overarching analysis. What complicates all of this is that conventional definitions of crime may not always apply in an outer space context. Why? Because laws setting out criminal offences are designed and executed in specific national contexts. Activities occurring outside of state jurisdiction, therefore, may not qualify as criminal insofar as they are beyond the boundaries of that jurisdiction, unless specifically stated. For instance, in 2022, the Canadian parliament passed an amendment to the nation’s Criminal Code to allow for the prosecution of crimes committed on the Moon. This follows previous legislation that extended its jurisdiction over criminal acts committed by Canadian astronauts during space travel to the International Space Station (ABC News 5 May, 2022). They are to be treated the same as crimes committed in Canada. Thus, citizenship is a variable in who gets charged with what crime. The impetus for this change in law was an alleged space crime in 2019. It was claimed (later found to be false) by the estranged spouse of Astronaut Anne McClain that McClain improperly accessed bank records while on a six-month mission aboard the International Space Station. While Lt McClain was later cleared, it did open up discussion regarding how to respond to criminality in outer space. For an act to be criminal, it must be legally condemned by the state, and sanctions must apply. This is the bottom line when it comes to how most criminal justice institutions operate, regardless of other perspectives that might also shape official reactions to behaviour that could also be seen as harmful but not legally criminal. One limitation of this is the absence of appropriate legislation to cover such harms. Which state and

1  Space Crime 

5

which acts and omissions count? Is international law available in cases of dispute? If crime is based partly on citizenship, will this lead to unequal convictions and outcomes because of differences in criminal law among nation-states? Another key limitation of a state-led definition of crime is that it provides a narrow conception of harm. New harms may emerge in the reaches of outer space, with new forms of transgression warranting social sanction, especially if non-human interests are considered (e.g., the Rights of the Moon). Furthermore, conventional thinking about crime often leaves begging the issue of state acts that may themselves be sources of considerable harm, but which are not criminalised by that same state (e.g., acts of genocide or torture). In space, the dominance of private corporations— in effect, states in themselves with regard to power, money and influence—further consolidates definitions and responses in the hands of those who are most powerful. Criminal laws are a human product, forged in historical and social circumstances that put their unique stamp upon what is considered harmful enough to be criminalised at any point in time. Not all harmful acts are criminalised either. This alone makes it clear that decisions about the criminal law are contested rather than technical. Hence, the politics of crime and crime control extend to outer space as well.

Concepts and Debates What is deemed to be ‘criminal’ and who is defined as an ‘offender’ (and ‘victim’) involves a social process, in which officials of the state formally intervene and designate certain acts and certain actors as warranting a criminal label. Until an act, or actor, has been processed in particular ways by the state, there is no ‘crime’ as such. This is regardless of actual behaviour that takes place. In other words, crime does not ‘exist’ until there has been an official social reaction to the event. However, where there is no ‘state’ to do the sanctioning, then potential exists for space as a lawless frontier with regard to criminal offences.

6 

J. Lampkin and R. White

‘Outer space’ refers to the expanse that exists beyond Earth and its atmosphere and between celestial bodies. Other common terms in this area include ‘extraterrestrial’. This refers to any object or being beyond the boundaries of the planet Earth (which is ‘terrestrial’, and closely related to the word ‘terra’ or ‘land’). The Earth’s atmosphere marks its boundary. This is the layer of gases, known collectively as air, retained by Earth’s gravity that surrounds the planet and forms its planetary atmosphere. While the atmosphere is estimated to extend in its upper levels some 10,000 kilometres, there is general scientific agreement that the Karman line, situated 100 kilometres above sea level, marks the transition point between Earth and space (Thirsk et al., 2009). Almost all the Earth’s atmosphere is located below this point. The word ‘alien’, in this context, denotes a being that is extraterrestrial in origins. This is usually represented as things and people that are different and strange to us because they are a form of life assumed to exist outside the Earth or its atmosphere. Outer space is much more than simply a demarcation ‘beyond Earth’. Space is a social construct. For example, the outer space close to planet Earth has private and public dimensions. It is ostensibly publicly accessible, but generally only accessed by state-supported agencies or private corporations. Space is not owned by anyone but is seen to be for everyone. Yet, what happens in space is ultimately shaped by state and private interests. Whether these coincide, or could coincide with the public interest, is a major question raised in this book. The regulation of space is in its infancy. The creation of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) in 1967 was a signal moment in initial attempts to regulate activities conducted off-planet. This is discussed in greater detail in Box 1.1. For now, suffice it to say that international treaties, conventions, and laws remain archaic and inadequate to the tasks that lie ahead. They are and continue to be essential to how space and objects in space are conceptualised (e.g., as exploitable resource or valued heritage). Space is not the absence of a celestial body (including the Earth) nor is it simply ‘emptiness’. Rather, outer space is defined by location and the objects which reside within its realm. It is laws and activities that define the meaning of space to humans.

1  Space Crime 

7

Box 1.1  The Outer Space Treaty The Outer Space Treaty was the first medium of international law aimed explicitly at protecting celestial bodies in outer space and ensuring international collaboration. The practicability of engaging in lunar activities was of great concern during the cold war era (c.1950s–1980s). The United States and former Soviet Union were the only two active space-faring nations at that time and apprehension over attempts to appropriate the Moon under national jurisdiction led to the creation of the Outer Space Treaty in 1967. The OST had five sections: A

B C D E

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space. Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.

Source: Overview of the Outer Space Treaty 1967 (United Nations, 2002) Part A of the treaty is the most significant and relevant in terms of arguments around attempts to appropriate the Moon (or other celestial bodies) under national jurisdiction. Today there are other states with space-faring capabilities, including China, India, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France. Most countries, including the space-faring ones, are members of the Outer Space Treaty, meaning it is arguably the most important treaty relating to activities conducted in outer space. Table  1.1 summarises the key articles of the OST, adapted from the United Nations (2002). The language used is employed tactically to address issues of peace, security, equality, and the fair and safe use of outer space by governmental and non-governmental organisations. These were all important considerations in the cold war era. There are other areas of international law pertaining to outer space, for example, the Moon, such as the Moon Agreement (MA) adopted in 1979. The MA reasserts much of the content of the OST (such as aspects of using the Moon for peaceful purposes), but it is aimed specifically at the lunar environment as opposed to other celestial bodies.

8 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Table 1.1  Key articles of the outer space treaty Article Explanation Article The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the I benefit and in the interests of all countries, and shall be the province of all humankind Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space Article Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not II subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty Article Treaty members shall conduct activities in the exploration and use of III outer space, in accordance with international law, including the charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security Article Treaty members shall not place in orbit around the Earth any objects IV carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all treaty members exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres shall be forbidden Article Treaty members shall regard astronauts as envoys of humankind in V outer space and shall render to them all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress or emergency Article Treaty members shall bear international responsibility for national VI activities in outer space The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorisation and continuing supervision by the appropriate treaty member Article Each treaty member is internationally liable for damage VII Article A treaty member who launches a registered object into outer space VIII shall retain jurisdiction and control over the object Article Treaty members shall be guided by the principle of cooperation and IX mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Treaty members shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter (continued)

1  Space Crime 

9

Table 1.1 (continued) Article Explanation Article In order to promote international cooperation in the peaceful XI exploration and use of outer space, treaty members conducting activities in outer space, agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of the nature, conduct, locations and results of such activities Article All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the Moon, XII and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other treaty members on a basis of reciprocity. Such representatives shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit Source: Adapted from the United Nations (2002: 4–8)

Even where laws are under-developed, criminologists have long-held conceptions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that are built into their analyses of harm. While not every designation of an act or omission is considered illegal or criminal in existing legal frameworks, harm can be both identified and quantified in ways that highlight its negative consequences. This orientation is evident in early work around space-related criminology. Astro-Green criminology, for example, is concerned with harmful human behaviours that extend to outer space (Lampkin, 2021; Takemura, 2019). This represented an early attempt to link green criminology with outer space studies. The main concerns of astro-green criminology include orbital debris, space mining, emissions pollutions, heritage sites in outer space, and future uses of outer space such as for tourism. Many of these concerns are likewise reflected in the present work. Space criminology extends the remit of astro-green criminology to include crime and criminality in its entirety, including potential offences for which we have no name as of yet. It also deals with interpersonal crimes in addition to crimes of the powerful. Space crime is defined initially by place. That is, it relates to locations in outer space and the celestial objects within this realm such as asteroids, moons, and planets. It also includes Earth-bound but space-related activities, such as toxic production and waste materials associated with building satellites and space craft.

10 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Harm is both conventional in the sense that they parallel crimes on the Earth (e.g., theft, environmental destruction) and space-specific insofar as they stem from and relate to endeavours that only take place in outer space (e.g., space junk). The perpetrators and victims of space crime can be distinguished on the basis of who the main actors are. These include the human and non-human. The commission of crimes may be direct and immediate (e.g., hitting someone), or indirect and have long lasting consequences (e.g., production of contaminants). Crimes may occur in person and on the ground (e.g., destroying Moon heritage) or occur via cyberspace (e.g., fraud, harassment).

Types of Space Crime Interpersonal Crimes These refer to crimes and harms that take place between individuals and individuals and groups. It includes crimes of violence such as physical assault, sexual assault, wounding, and killing. Other harms include robbery and theft, drug dealing and consumption, prostitution, gaining illegal income, vandalism, and bullying. These crimes tend to be individualised, may be ‘victimless’ (i.e., only harming the person engaging in them), and are generally less harmful than structural crimes (such as those perpetrated by corporations). However, individuals who engage in racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination are, in effect, an expression of structural inequalities and cultural biases.

Corporate Crimes These refer to crimes committed to advance the interests of the corporation. They include breaches of corporate law, environmental destruction and degradation, inadequate adherence to industrial health and safety provisions, fraud, and embezzlement. The point of such crimes is to maximise profit and minimise losses. For corporate officials, the intention is

1  Space Crime 

11

to augment wealth and thereby bolster one’s personal position in the economic and social hierarchy. The private interest of the corporation prevails over the public interest.

State Crimes These include misuse of public funds, accepting bribes, government corruption (both direct and moral), violation of civil and human rights, use of coercive measures to control dissent and to further the national interest, usually defined to coincide with elite and corporate interests. State-­ corporate crime involves collusion between government and corporations in pursuit of economic objectives. State crimes may also involve inaction on the part of government (e.g., not enforcing the law against corporate polluters). They include explicit commission of crimes such as genocide, ecocide, war, and illegal land grabs. Abuse of power may manifest in dissemination of false or misleading information by state agencies, and secrecy provisions that disguise the misuse of state funds and resources.

Eco-Justice Crimes These harms refer to activities that impact humans but also plant and animal species, ecosystems, and non-human entities such as rivers and mountains. Earth-based production for space-related activities may involve generation of pollutants and contamination of land, air and water. In space, asteroids and moons may be exploited for their minerals in ways that fundamentally transform them. Methods and techniques of natural resource extraction and use may involve exploitation of humans and Nature, with unforeseen consequences for both.

The Dynamics of Space Crime Transgressions committed by individuals, corporations and nation-states vary in intensity, scope and consequence. This is partly reflected in the usual remedies to such transgressions, which comprise administrative (e.g., fines), civil (e.g., injunctions to stop work) and criminal (e.g., fines,

12 

J. Lampkin and R. White

imprisonment) sanctions. Again, the seriousness of the harm is not always reflected in whether an activity is considered a crime and if it is how serious it is. Polluting factories on Earth, for example, operate under license to pollute. This is perfectly legal until and unless the factory crosses a set threshold. Even then, this would normally be considered a breach of regulation or license, rather than perceived as inherently criminal. Related to perceptions of crime and the seriousness of the harm, is the matter of how to measure space crime. This once again is something of a conundrum. This is because so few crimes have been ‘officially’ recorded, therefore making crime patterns difficult to analyse (since the sample is so small) and well-informed predictions virtually impossible (since these are based on prior occurrence). How crime is measured depends on how we define crime and how we see the criminalisation process. One of the tasks of space criminology is to uncover and record the ‘dark figure’ of space-related crime. This obviously requires research that goes past reliance on official records and data. The problem here is one of omission— determining what crimes exist and how to ascertain their dynamics and prevalence. A related task for space criminology is interpreting how and why government agencies and significant social institutions such as corporations deal with behaviour and activities that are harmful. In some instances, there is a tendency to turn a ‘blind eye’; in others to prosecute quietly so as not to engender negative media treatment of government or company. Here the emphasis is the problem of bias—to show how some people and events are designated by the criminal justice system, or by space expeditioners themselves, as being harmful or criminal, while others are not. Another space criminology task is to examine closely the question of power and interests. Crime is frequently committed against the least powerful sections of the human population, and most vulnerable species of plant and animal. Harms against the environment may be ignored or underrepresented. The emphasis here therefore is on the problem of victimisation—to demonstrate how certain groups and certain features of the natural world (including off-planet) are subject to victimisation, exploitation, and denigration. The lack of environmental protection and protection of human rights is a vital concern.

1  Space Crime 

13

Future Directions Present and future constructions of space criminality and harm are inevitably rooted in eco-philosophy which describes the relationship between humans and Nature. Eco-justice conceptions of crime and victimisation raise important issues regarding how humans value the non-human, and how they will proceed in any interactions with non-human entities. Earth-based activism around these questions tends to centre on the significance of ecocentrism as a philosophical position and guide to practice (White, 2018). Embedded in this concept are notions of rights, care and sustainability. Ecocentrism refers to viewing the environment as having value for its own sake apart from any instrumental or utilitarian value to humans. A fundamental aspect of ecocentrism is to see entities such as non-human animals, plants, and rivers as potential rights-holders and/or as objects warranting a duty of care on the part of humans, since their interests are seen to be philosophically significant (i.e., deserving greater respect and formal recognition) (Schlossberg, 2007). It is based on several key principles that relate to the intrinsic value of Nature (including flora and fauna), the precautionary principle, the primacy of environmental wellbeing, and remediation. Protection of the environment may be based on either one of or a combination of conceptions of the rights of nature (both as subject with rights, or object worthy of protection) and duties to Nature (its intrinsic worth which therefore imposes a moral obligation and duty of care) (Fisher, 2010).

Eco-justice and Victimisation The lens of eco-justice can be used to shine light on various forms of victimisation (White, 2013), including ‘victims’ of environmental crime that span the human and the non-human (White 2022, 2023). • Environment justice—environmental rights are seen as an extension of human or social rights, and are related to the quality of human life, now and into the future: the victims are human. The objective is to counter environmental discrimination and racism, and to enhance intergenerational and intragenerational equity.

14 

J. Lampkin and R. White

• Ecological justice—humans are one component of complex ecosystems that should be preserved for their own sake: the victims are specific environments. Humans need to engage in stewardship and custodianship of rivers, mountains and forests and thereby exercise a form of ecological citizenship centred on Nature. • Species justice—non-human animals have an intrinsic right not to suffer abuse, and plants not to experience the degradation of habitat to the extent that threatens biodiversity loss: the victims are animals and plants. Speciesism is viewed as inherently discriminatory and addressing threats to and the expansion of biodiversity is central to the health and wellbeing of all living entities. For green criminologists, the inclusion of both human and non-human stems from adoption of an ecocentric perspective (intrinsic value) or anthropocentric perspectives that lean towards a strong instrumental protection of Nature (for everyone’s sake). This inclusiveness means that research attention is directed to matters of habitat, species, and landscape, as well as human communities. It also has implications for operational practice and strategic interventions. This is because crime prevention, policing, and court-related matters ought to incorporate consideration of the interests and needs of ecosystems, plants, and animals, as well as non-living entities such as rivers and mountains. The same principles can apply to outer space, although here the object/subject of concern is literally off the planet. • Extraterrestrial justice—outer space or extraterrestrial bodies such as moons, asteroids, planets, and comets have their own special character and social and cultural status, and this should be preserved as far as possible in any interactions involving humans: the victims are celestial bodies. Caution should be taken in how humans interact with and exploit these bodies insofar as economic value should not trump other kinds of values such as intrinsic value and the right to ‘be’. The question of extraterrestrial life is another matter altogether and raises additional complications in regard to eco-justice. Much depends upon the sophistication of the life form, the ways in which it relates to or

1  Space Crime 

15

threatens humanity, whether it is intelligent or conscious, plant-related or animal-related, and able to communicate with humans. All this depends, of course, on whether there are other life-forms in the vicinity of Earth and its local planetary system, or indeed in the universe (see Box 1.2). Either proposition—that there is ‘other life’ or that there is no ‘other life’—is astonishing and deeply unsettling. If the former, then there will be much yet for space criminology to consider philosophically and practically.

Box 1.2  The Likelihood of Other Life Scientists have attempted to quantify the likelihood of there being ‘other life’ of an intelligent nature beyond Earth. For instance, the American astrophysicist Professor Frank Donald Drake proposed his thought-provoking equation at a conference in West Virginia in 1961. Known affectionately as the Drake Equation, Drake proposed a method for calculating the number (N) of technologically advanced civilisations with the technological ability to communicate with Earth. The famous equation reads as:



N = R * f p ne fl fi fc L.

According to Glade et al. (2012: 103), ‘N is the number of Galactic civilizations that can communicate with Earth; R* is the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy; fp is the fraction of stars that host planetary systems; ne is the number of planets in each system which are potentially habitable; fl is the fraction of habitable planets where life originates and becomes complex; fi is the fraction of life-bearing planets that bear intelligence; fc is the fraction of intelligence bearing planets where technology can develop; and L is the mean lifetime of a technological civilization within the detection window’. While Drake’s equation has been subjected to some intense criticism since its proposal over 60  years ago (Crichton, 2003), it still serves as a useful reminder of the size and scale of the universe and the possibilities for life contained therein (see also Takemura, 2022). From a space criminological perspective, ‘other life’ raises practical and moral questions about human relationships with extraterrestrial life. One such question is the extent to which humans should be tampering with life in other celestial places, whether this be intelligent life or otherwise. Wild laws (or principles of Earth jurisprudence) may help when applied as universal laws that consider the role of humans on Earth but operating within the wider cosmos (Berry, 1999; Cullinan, 2003).

16 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Support of the extension of legal rights to natural objects is expressed in arguments that all things have the right to ‘be’ and to ‘do’ in ways that reflect their core or defining trait or characteristic, including abiotic or non-living entities, such as the right of a river to flow (Cullinan, 2003). This principle is a useful starting point when considering the moral compass that ought to guide human explorations in outer space and the status of the celestial bodies that inhabit this space.

New Obligations and New Crimes While ecocentric notions of law manifest in ‘rights of Nature’ discourse, and law reform makes sense on Earth (hence the name ‘Earth Jurisprudence’ to describe these legal initiatives), the question is whether similar advances are needed and therefore should be anticipated for non-­ Earth entities, and for activities taking place in extraterrestrial locations. On Earth, the notion of stewardship (or custodianship) is central to the granting of personhood rights to non-human entities such as rivers. Where this occurs, it is usually specified in law. For example, the intrinsic rights of Nature have been acknowledged in specific laws recently passed in New Zealand. These pertain to Te Urewera (land) and Te Awa Tupua (water). The laws acknowledge this land and this river as having their own mana (its own authority) and mauri (its own life force). The landscape/river is personified—it is its own person and cannot be owned— and this is established through legislation that acknowledges their status as a legal ‘person’. This means that Nature (in its various manifestations) is recognised as a subject within law. In the case of the Te Urewera Act 2014, the land is to be preserved in its natural state, introduced plants and animals exterminated (i.e., invasive species eradicated), and the Tuhoe people and the Crown are to work together in a stewardship role. Similarly, the Te Awa Tupua Act 2016 grants legal recognition to the Whanganui River and, while neutralising ownership issues pertaining to the Whanganui Iwi (who sought recognition of their authority over the river), provides for a co-management regime involving the Whanganui Iwi and the Crown (Monod de Froidville & Bowling, 2022). While significant issues remain in regard to who can or should be considered a ‘legitimate’ advocate and/or expert for Nature (White, 2022),

1  Space Crime 

17

steps are being taken to resolve these through grounded legal reforms. Who the legitimate proxies and spokespeople are or should be for entities in outer space that cannot otherwise articulate their claims to intrinsic value, legal status, and social protection is much more problematic. Given that there are no indigenous peoples and prior human interactions to fall back on, this is largely a matter of who is best to advocate for and provide expertise in relation to the extraterrestrial. Expertise and the right to speak are not only varied (e.g., involving a host of natural science, social science, and socio-legal disciplines and fields) but subject to ongoing political contestation (e.g., claims of ownership and primary control, private or state). Moving forward, a blend of expertise and ideas from many different quarters (including scientists, environmental activists, philosophers and ethicists, and laypeople among others) will ideally be part of the continuing dialogue around stewardship, custodianship, and protection of cosmological Nature generally. Another challenge that lies ahead is how to measure harm in relation to extraterrestrial spaces and bodies. This ultimately requires suitable social, economic and ecological metrics. These, in turn, will always be located within specific eco-philosophy contexts, such as anthropocentric and ecocentric frameworks (and the complexities within each of these). Inevitably there will be tensions between instrumental exploitation of resources in outer space and valuing celestial objects (and indeed, space itself ) for their intrinsic features and worth. The thresholds and degrees of permitted harm will be shaped by conversations over precisely these issues, in addition to assessments of potential risks and harms to humans. Expertise will need to be mobilised and institutionalised in order to capture adequately the nature, seriousness and complexities of harm in the extraterrestrial context. Such expertise will continue to evolve as human knowledge of the universe expands, and technologies allow for greater examination of and insight into celestial forces and bodies. These are not trivial matters for space criminology. The imposition of law in formerly unregulated places will call forth appropriate administrative, civil and criminal measures to ensure compliance. Prosecution will depend on the specificity of the offences described in law, the expertise of the adjudicators, the range of sanctions available, and the desired outcome of the legislation (e.g., on Earth, ‘ecological sustainability’ and/or a ‘good environmental outcome’). Justice will be determined by how the

18 

J. Lampkin and R. White

extraterrestrial is socially constructed and by whom. For space criminology, at the heart of this evaluation of circumstance is ecology, involving a holistic understanding of the natural world. But it is an ecology foreign to Earth scientists and with many unknowns. Protection of celestial objects and outer space may stem from a variety of practical imperatives and philosophical considerations. It may be motivated by anthropocentric concerns insofar as good environments are associated with healthy conditions for the flourishing of human interests, including for example, aesthetic and recreational values. It may be linked to a ‘Rights of Nature’ emphasis on the intrinsic value of the abiotic components of Nature which space travel enables contact with (e.g., Rights of the Moon). The impetus might be simply a concern to care for anything which is vulnerable to human degradation and exploitation, regardless of whom it benefits in the short term. Being cautious and protective may also simply be due to the uncertainty involved in every step we take beyond the Earth. Thus, it is more than rights and duty of care that should guide space criminology—the precautionary principle takes on added importance in environments fundamentally different to the Earth-bound.

The Logics of Exploitation The history of the world is a history of exploitation and instrumental use of resources. This does not apply to all eras or all peoples the same way. For indigenous peoples, living in and with Nature often meant thousands of years of relative stability, including living in what could be considered the hostile environments of desert and tundra. The advent of the industrial revolution and the imperialist surge out of Europe radically altered the global social and ecological environment (van der Velden & White, 2021). Slavery, dispossession from traditional lands, and unequal exchanges between European nations and non-European nations all feature in these histories of imperialism and colonialism. The racialised discourses that positioned ‘European’ and ‘White’ as superior and dominant continue to distort relations at both local and global levels, thereby reinforcing differences in communal wellbeing and individual and group opportunity. Ecologically, the planet has been ravaged by deforestation, massive dam projects, extensive mining (including more recently fracking operations), despoilation of

1  Space Crime 

19

water, degeneration of soils, contamination of law, and pollution of air. This pattern continues today under the control of transnational corporations and nation-states that serve their specific private interests. The present-day colonial project also manifests in other ways. A key aspect is the notion that the land is presumed ‘there for the taking’ on the part of the unscrupulous, the corrupt and the ruthless. For instance, in many places around the globe where minority or Indigenous peoples live, oil, timber, and minerals are extracted in ways that devastate local ecosystems and destroy traditional cultures and livelihoods (Brook, 2000; Gedicks, 2005; Schlosberg, 2007). This disregard for everyone and everything is driven by the pursuit of private profit and propelled by an incessant growth imperative. Contemporary global capitalism is leading to a general demise of civilisation as we know it—and this disrespect for people and place will also feature in the exploitation of space. Preventing and responding to environmental harm, whether on Earth or in outer space, is ultimately related to power and interests. Many of the activities of destruction and transformation of Nature, for instance, could not occur without the close collusion of private companies and nation-­ states. The fight for social and ecological justice is necessarily a struggle in and against these powerful forces. Profound transformations are taking place over which the majority have little say and even less control. Without concerted efforts, the same will likely occur in regard to the extraterrestrial.

Issues for Consideration Politically, one of the themes of space criminology is to establish the parameters for debates over criminality, crime, and victimhood as these apply to non-Earth entities and outer space locations. Conventional definitions of crime may not always be relevant, and crime control may be compromised by location and jurisdiction. Harms may be committed by humans against other humans (interpersonal crimes), laws may be transgressed (crime against the state), and non-human entities such as corporations may be implicated in harms against both humans and celestial bodies (crimes of the powerful). The exploitation of humans and environments can occur singularly (interpersonal violence) and systemically (contamination from industrial pollutants).

20 

J. Lampkin and R. White

On Earth, there is some movement in support of non-terrestrial rights of Nature. So far, this has mainly taken the form of a manifesto for the ‘Rights of the Moon’ (see Box 1.3). The manifesto expresses ideas and interests that encompass the spiritual and the material, the known and the unknown, time and space, and ecology and cosmology.

Box 1.3  Declaration of the Rights of the Moon We the people of Earth— Acknowledging the unique, intact, interconnected lunar environments and landscapes which exist on the Moon; Acknowledging the ancient, primordial relationship between Earth and the Moon; Mindful of how much is still unknown about the co-origins of Earth and the Moon; Aware that the Moon is critically important to the healthy functioning of the Earth system, and is a vital sustaining component of all life on Earth; Aware that the Moon holds deep cultural and spiritual meaning for human beings; Acknowledging that the cycles of the Moon have enabled life itself to evolve on Earth; Mindful of the immeasurable value the Moon holds as a repository of deep time and connection among all beings who have ever lived on Earth, since its features have remained almost unchanged since time immemorial; Conscious that wealthy nations and corporations are developing technologies that may make it possible to return to, live on, mine and otherwise alter the Moon; Aware of humanity’s impact on the Earth—causing ecosystem collapse, a new era of mass species extinction and global climate change—and seeking to avoid destruction and change to the natural systems and ecosystems of the Moon, Declare that— 1. The Moon—which consists of but is not limited to: its surface and subsurface landscapes including mountains and craters, rocks and boulders, regolith, dust, mantle, core, minerals, gases, water, ice, boundary exosphere, surrounding lunar orbits, cislunar space—is a sovereign natural entity in its own right and, in accordance with established international space law, no nation, entity, or individual of Earth may assert ownership or territorial sovereignty of the Moon. (continued)

1  Space Crime 

21

Box 1.3  (continued) 2. The Moon possesses fundamental rights, which arise from its existence in the universe, including: • the right to exist, persist and continue its vital cycles unaltered, unharmed and unpolluted by human beings; • the right to maintain ecological integrity; • the right to be defined as a self-sustaining, intelligent, cohesive, intact lunar ecosystem, beyond current human comprehension; • the right to independently maintain its own life-sustaining relationship with the Earth’s environments and living creatures; and • the right to remain a forever peaceful celestial entity, unmarred by human conflict or warfare. Source: Australian Earth Laws Alliance, 2021.

While the details of the Manifesto are being worked out and support is growing, it is still early days. It has taken decades of activism for the rights of Nature movement to induce legal changes pertaining to Constitutions and specific laws. It will be many more before that project is completed. For the protection of the extraterrestrial, the struggle is just beginning.

Conclusion This chapter has focussed on issues pertaining to space crime. At the centre of this are the notions of harm and morality. One cannot separate ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from issues of transgression—they are intimately and inextricably intertwined. Conceptions of justice bear this out. Green criminology, for instance, extends the typically human-centred conception of justice to include ecosystems and plant and animal species. Conventional crimes involving humans as victims are still included in this eco-justice framework. But the framework also incorporates the non-­ human. Analysis of space crime must also account for non-human interests and entities, although in this case it is celestial bodies that are most relevant.

22 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Again, this conception of justice is not mutually exclusive of terrestrial notions—it does, however, involve thinking about outer space in new ways, using new language specific to the phenomenon. One of the messages of the chapter is that uncertainty surrounds what will be defined as a crime, who will do the defining, and what the social and ecological result will be once crimes in space are given legal definition. The Outer Space Treaty provides an inkling of how governments view the challenges and opportunities associated with moving beyond the frontiers of Earth’s atmosphere. A task for space criminology is to critically assess whether this is enough, if suitable protections of humans and environments are included, and what can be done to enshrine rights and ensure good social and ecological outcomes. This is partly a matter of philosophy in regard to how we view outer space—as a resource, frontier, an exploration, and/or as replete with rights and needing respect. It is also partly a question of pragmatics—given who will actually be in outer space as well as who controls the central levers of business and government back on Earth. What scope there is for democratic input into decisions about the extraterrestrial, including the Moon, is of the highest concern. Policy recommendations and advice are less than useful if not accompanied by a proper seat at the table. Until then, the intellectual contribution is to ponder ‘what could be’ and ‘what is just’; the rights movements to emphasise caution, conservation, and consultation. Further empirical investigations and case studies are needed to illuminate the dynamics and unique circumstances of space crime, its perpetrators, and its victims. As we build a knowledge base, principles of engagement can simultaneously be developed—between nations, between corporations and nations, and between humanity and the extraterrestrial. This, too, will determine what is considered transgressive and harmful and whether and when activities are serious enough to be given the label ‘crime’.

References ABC News. (2022, May 5). Canada Warns It Will Prosecute Astronauts for Crimes in Space and on the Moon. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Australian Earth Laws Alliance. (2021). Declaration of the Rights of the Moon. AELA. earthlaws.org.au

1  Space Crime 

23

Berry, T. (1999). The Great Work: Our Way into the Future. Harmony/Bell Tower. Brook, D. (2000). Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57(1), 105–113. Crichton, M. (2003). Aliens Cause Global Warming [Online]. Available at: https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/ Crichton2003.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2023. Cullinan, C. (2003). Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice. Green Books in Association with The Gaia Foundation. Findlay, M., Odgers, S., & Yeo, S. (2005). Australian Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. Fisher, D. (2010). Jurisprudential Challenges to the Protection of the Natural Environment. In M. Maloney & P. Burdon (Eds.), Wild Law – In Practice (pp. 95–112). Routledge. Gedicks, A. (2005). Resource Wars Against Native Peoples. In R. Bullard (Ed.), The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution (pp. 168–187). Sierra Club Books. Glade, N., Ballet, P., & Bastien, O. (2012). A Stochastic Process Approach of the Drake Equation Parameters. International Journal of Astrobiology, 11(2), 103–108. Lampkin, J. A. (2021). Mapping the Terrain of an Astro-Green Criminology: A Case for Extending the Green Criminological Lens Outside of Planet Earth. Astropolitics: The International Journal of Space Politics and Policy, 18(3), 238–259. Monad de Froidville, S., & Bowling, R. (2022). Te Awa Tupua: An Exemplary Environmental Law? In J. Gacek & R. Jochelson (Eds.), Green Criminology and the Law. Palgrave Macmillan. Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature. Oxford University Press. Takemura, N. (2019). Astro-Green Criminology: A New Perspective Against Space Capitalism. Toin University of Yokohama Research Bulletin, 40, 7–17. Takemura, N. (2022). Extraterrestrial Super Intelligence and Energy-and-­ Resource Control in the Star, Galaxy, and Universe: Prospect of Ultimate Astro-Green Criminology. Toin University of Yokohama Research Bulletin, 47, 27–37. Thirsk, R., Kuipers, A., Mukai, C., & Williams, D. (2009). The Space-Flight Environment: The International Space Station and Beyond. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 180(12), 1216–1220.

24 

J. Lampkin and R. White

United Nations. (2002). United Nations Treaties and Principles on Outer Space [Online]. Available at: https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/publications/STSPACE 11E.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2022. van der Velden, J., & White, R. (2021). The Extinction Curve: Growth and Globalisation in the Climate Endgame. Emerald. White, R. (2013). Environmental Harm: An Eco-Justice Perspective. Policy Press. White, R. (2018). Ecocentrism and Criminal Justice. Theoretical Criminology, 22(3), 342–362. White, R. (2022). Theorising Green Criminology: Selected Essays. Routledge. White, R. (2023). Advanced Introduction to Applied Green Criminology. Edward Elgar. White, R., Haines, F., & Asquith, N. (2023). Crime and Criminology. Oxford University Press.

2 The Global Space Industry

Introduction The Cold War era was regarded as initiating the first space age. This significant period peaked between the 1950s and 1970s and was synonymous with, on the one hand, excitement, optimism, and anticipation on behalf of national governments, space agencies and ordinary citizens alike, about what the future of space exploration might hold. The launching of the first anthropogenic satellites, coupled with images of people walking on the Moon, was more than enough to excite and spark enthusiasm about outer space exploration and expansion in the minds of citizens. Many talked of colonising the cosmos and of widening space participation to the masses (Siddiqi, 2010). On the other hand, the Cold War period was also synonymous with a sense of tension and political and military uncertainty due to the ongoing conflict between the two dominant technological superpowers with juxtaposed cultures and political and economic systems—the capitalist United States and communist Soviet Union. The expectation of violence between these two states was alarmingly high in the Cold War era as many perceived outer space expansion as a form of strategic planning for military warfare (Reisman, 1990). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Lampkin, R. White, Space Criminology, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39912-1_2

25

26 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Such underlying feelings have now shifted and evolved. While war-like space practices remain a problem in the twenty-first century (evidenced by the continuation of anti-satellite testing in recent times by Russia, India, the United States, and China), the interest and investment in space expansion by the world’s wealthiest people has sparked a new wave of anticipation and uncertainty in private sector space involvement. For instance, space advocates remain enthusiastic about what the future may hold for space colonisation, exploration, and expansion, eagerly anticipating the successes of new, private space enterprises with money to spend. Others, however, are more sceptical about the methods and motivations behind renewed space interests, the role that profit-making may play in impending space ventures, and what this might mean for the future of human societies and environmental harms both on Earth and in extraterrestrial environments. This chapter covers three important areas of the global space industry. First, it provides a basic overview and context of space exploration activities from the Cold War era to the present day. Second, it discusses the relatively recent involvement of private actors in the space sector, an industry traditionally dominated by national governments and publicly funded space agencies. The third section of the chapter examines the neglected topic of discrimination within the global space industry and the historical (and contemporary) domination of the sector by white men in Western, wealthy nations. The importance of considering discriminations and inequalities as humans look set to progress their physical reach into space will be discussed, including how this might impact impending human space societies. The chapter concludes with a discussion of different perspectives on space expansionism.

F rom the Cold War to the Dawn of a New Space Age The launch of Sputnik-1, the world’s first artificial satellite, was a significant moment in both space and human history, marking the start of an era typified by outer space excitement and military tension. Launched by the Soviet Union in 1957, Sputnik-1 signified the start of the first space

2  The Global Space Industry 

27

age. Also known colloquially as the Cold War owing to the fact there was no physical war or official war declared between the USA and the USSR during that time, the successful launch of Sputnk-1 into Earth orbit fuelled a decade or so of intense rivalry, political tension and technological competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Advancement in space technology had also occurred in the decades before the launch of Sputnik-1. In the 1940s, for instance, Wernher von Braun’s team created the notorious V2 heavy rocket, a long-range missile deployed by Germany in attacks against several European countries in the Second World War. Although the V2 rocket caused social and environmental devastation on Earth, the science behind it was utilised by both the United States and the Soviet Union in their attempts to drive ahead in the space race. But even earlier than this, individuals were experimenting with the dynamics of rocket launching. For example, in 1926 Robert Goddard launched the first liquid-fuelled rocket that reached an altitude of 41 feet in two seconds. By the mid-1930s, Goddard’s rockets had flown up to 1.7 miles, breaking the sound barrier at 741 miles per hour (NASA, 2004). Although Goddard’s rockets were being designed for vertical launch and spaceflight, von Braun’s V2 rocket had a much longer and more devastating horizontal range of about 200 miles which demonstrates the rapid acceleration of rocket science in the mid-­twentieth century. Consequently, it can be argued that the creation of the V2 rocket paved the way for the rapid space advancement witnessed in the immediate postWorld War II period. From the development of the V2, Sputnik-1 followed suit, as did a number of other ground-breaking space missions. In 1959, two Soviet Luna probes enjoyed astronomical successes. Luna 2 became the first anthropogenic object to (crash) land on the Moon. In the same year, Luna 3 travelled to the far side of the Moon and sent back pictures of a surface never previously seen before (because the Moon always shows us its same side as it completes one rotation each time it orbits the Earth). And finally, in 1961, the Soviets successfully sent Yuri Gagarin into space and returned him safely to Earth demonstrating that human space flight was possible. It was thus the Soviet Union which made the greatest technological breakthroughs at the beginning of the Cold War. The United States, however, caught up and (arguably) overtook the Soviet Union by the late 1960s. Their crowning achievement came in

28 

J. Lampkin and R. White

1969 when Astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong became the first humans to step foot on the Moon. In total, 12 American men have walked on the Moon through the Apollo missions between 1969 and 1972 (Lampkin & Wyatt, 2022). Although this book discusses some impending plans to return to the Moon in the 2020s, there has been a 50-year period—following the initial rapid technological advancements seen in the Cold War era—where humans have failed to physically return to the Moon or any other celestial body. This has been described as a ‘boom and bust’ scenario whereby the initial mid-twentieth century space boom has since been followed with a substantial bust period of relative inactivity where space expansion has not proceeded at the rate many enthusiasts thought it would during the technologically progressive Cold War era (Deudney, 2020: 19–21). However, although 50 years have passed since humans last stepped foot on the Moon, this is not to say that humans have been physically inactive in outer space until now. On the contrary, from the launch of the International Space Station in 1998 over 250 people from 20 different countries have spent time there. As a collaborative effort between multiple national and transnational space agencies (such as the United States, Russia, Japan, and the European Space Agency [ESA]), the development of the various ISS capsules was a symbol of what can be achieved in outer space when knowledge and resources are pooled together. The ISS was also a welcome joint-political enterprise and peaceful endeavour following the tense Cold War period. After all, some of the concerns regarding Russian and American technological dominance and prowess in the mid-­twentieth century were around outer space appropriation, nuclear proliferation, and implications for military warfare either in outer space, or on planet Earth. Cohesiveness on the long-term ISS project eased some of those tensions, giving people hope that peace in outer space might be possible. Although there has been considerable space industry development since the first Cold War achievements, it is widely regarded that contemporary space expansion has not proceeded at the same pace as that era, nor at the presumed accelerated pace that many thought possible and probable. As Deudney (2020: 19) observes, ‘after this first burst of major advances, the overall path of human space expansion has been much less rapid and successful than advocates had anticipated’. Statistics on the

2  The Global Space Industry 

29

launching of rockets since the Cold War serve to confirm the relative lull period in space exploration since the 1960s. Ross and Toohey (2019: 1) point out that ‘the annual rate of rocket launches increased rapidly after the start of the space age, peaking at 157 launches in 1967. But then (they) declined over the next four decades, decreasing to only 42 launches in 2005’. There have been several purported explanations for this drop in space launch activity, including a lack of political will and financial investment in outer space exploration and a decline in public enthusiasm and support for costly outer space projects (Gisler & Sornette, 2009). While the reasons behind a decline in space launches are likely to vary from place to place, the lack of sustained governmental financial investment appears to be a common problem. For instance, at the height of the Cold War in the mid-1960s, NASA received more than 0.7% of national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and this percentage has depreciated gradually to around 0.1% of GDP in 2018 (Weinzierl, 2018). Despite the prolonged lull period between 1970 and 2005, annual space launches have started to increase again, and the space industry is now growing thanks to sustained commercial interest. Perhaps more significantly, public enthusiasm for outer space exploration is increasing due to a number of high-profile people and companies investing in space exploration technologies and activities. Akin to the public enthusiasm created by the ambitious Luna and Apollo projects in the 1960s, contemporary fervour is stirred through the combination of heavy private investment, attractive marketing, advertising, and social media campaigning. This, coupled with ambitious outer space plans and intentions, and a genuine feeling that commercial weight will enable scientists stripped of governmental investment to pick up where they left off with new private partners, have led commentators to suggest we are now at the dawn of a new commercial space age (Pyle, 2019).

From a Public to a Public-Private Industry The global space industry is a variable term, but here it is used to describe a multifaceted marketplace, one that involves artificial satellites, space mining, space tourism, space scientific endeavour, and plans for space

30 

J. Lampkin and R. White

expansion and colonisation. These markets will be discussed at length throughout this book from a criminological perspective. The space industry can be considered global for several reasons. First, there are new public and private players in the space industry beyond the historic monopoly held by Russia and the USA. In terms of exploration for instance, the European Space Agency (ESA) and Japan Space Agency (JAXA) in 2018 launched an orbital spacecraft to learn more about the planet Mercury in their joint Bepi-Colombo project. Additionally, the Chinese National Space Agency (CNSA) were successful in placing a spacecraft into Martian orbit in 2021, the same mission that also successfully landed the Zhurong rover. In a similar vein, the United Arab Emirates also placed their hope orbital probe into Martian orbit in 2021, and in 2010, JAXA successfully brought their Hayabusa spacecraft back to Earth with regolith samples (unconsolidated solid material covering the bedrock of the space object) it collected from near-Earth asteroid 25,143 Itokawa. Despite the relative contemporary diversity in space exploration involvement around the world, there are still only a handful of national space agencies conducting exploration missions. As such, the global space exploration industry could be seen as having transitioned from a Soviet-­ American monopoly in the Cold War era to an oligopolistic system in the twenty-first century whereby a still small number of nation states have direct involvement in space missions (see Table 2.1). Alongside this continuation of public investment, there are also another handful of major private investors in space exploration and tourism—notably the companies SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and some smaller start-up firms. On top of these companies are a number of other technology-based firms that contribute to the overall design and build of rockets, spacecraft, satellites, and so forth. These include the likes of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, the Sierra Nevada corporation, and the Ad Astra rocket propulsion company (amongst many others). The involvement of private actors in the global space industry is having a monumental impact on what can be achieved in outer space. Unsurprisingly, the money and profit-orientated private sector is attempting to overcome one of the major hurdles and downfalls of space exploration that plagued the industry at the end of the twentieth century—launch cost. One of the major criticisms of space exploration has traditionally

31

2  The Global Space Industry 

Table 2.1  Space participation in orbital launches 2018–2022 by country/agency Country/Agency Primary participants United States China Russia Secondary participants European Space Agency India Japan Iran Tertiary participants Israel North Korea South Korea Total

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total 34 39 17

27 34 22

44 39 15

51 55 24

82 58 21

238 225 99

11 7 6 0

9 6 2 2

7 2 4 2

7 2 3 2

4 5 1 1

38 22 16 7

0 1 0 0 0 0 102 114

0 1 0 145

0 0 1 173

1 1 1 648

0 0 0 114

Tertiary Countries with Space Agencies but no Known Launches: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, Venezuela, Zimbabwe Source: Information derived from the United Nations (2022) and Space Stats Online (2022)

been the great sums of taxpayers’ money needed to fund space missions, which could have been spent on worthy terrestrial causes like education or medicine. Part of this problem was the one-time nature of rocket bodies which included a large price tag and several years to construct. There is a lot of pressure to achieve success and a lot of criticism for mission failure. The recent move and investment in finding solutions to enable reusable rockets is intended to bring down the cost of launching. Recently, the SpaceX company has succeeded in its development of the reusable Falcon-9 heavy rocket which has reduced the costs of a 22,800 kg rocket launch to just US$62 million, down from the hefty heights of US$1.5 billion per launch required under NASA’s space shuttle programme for a rocket launch of similar weight (Jones, 2018). Overall, the private sector has condensed the typical launch costs of rockets into LEO by a factor of 20 (Jones, 2018), and such expenditures are likely to continue to decrease

32 

J. Lampkin and R. White

over time as technology advances, providing there is sustained financial investment. Reusable rocket technology and reduced launch costs are significant primarily because they open outer space up to a variety of industries and businesses which would otherwise have been priced out of the market. Significantly, it means more satellites can be launched more regularly and by a greater variety of scientists, governments, and businesses. It means the military can undertake more activities in outer space, growing their defence infrastructures. It also means more trips can be made to and from off-Earth space stations, increasing the number of people who can spend time in space. Finally, reduced launch costs enable communications, weather, global positioning systems (GPS), and other such industries to do more in space for less resulting in growing markets. While cheaper space access may appear to be socially and financially advantageous, a critical criminological analysis of reduced launch costs identifies several concerning issues. First, cheaper access to space signifies an increase in the number of launches to space per year. This means the orbital environment will accumulate a greater number and mass of debris pieces as payloads and rocket bodies are unavoidably released into Earth orbit. As discussed later in the book, increases in the orbital debris environment create problems for both star-gazing on Earth, and the navigation and manoeuvring of anthropogenic objects already in Earth orbit. More debris increases the chances of damage to functioning satellites and inhabited space stations, while simultaneously increasing the likelihood of in-orbit collisions creating thus more debris (and, furthermore, difficulties in cataloguing what debris exists and where it is in orbit). Second, cheaper access to space is also concerning from a social perspective. The heavy reliance on outer space for satellite and communication services means any mishap, collision, or explosion in space that impacts a satellite (or if key satellites are intentionally destroyed in the event of military space warfare), then ordinary citizens may lose the ability to use vital satellites in their everyday lives for instance, for Internet, GPS, navigation, and communication purposes. Finally, while lower-cost access to space may bring about positive economic benefits through increased business and market stimulation— benefits such as job creation, economic growth, and shareholder

2  The Global Space Industry 

33

profits—an increase in the frequency of space launches would have an undeniably negative impact on the environment through ground-level ecological disruption and fragmentation, and damage to Earth’s fragile atmosphere. This is because rocket launching requires powerful propellants to be burned in order to create the thrust necessary for spacecraft to escape Earth’s gravity. Consequently, burning fuels such as hydrazine, kerosene, aluminium, and methane during lift-off and through Earth’s atmospheres and ozone, creates obvious and multiple environmental harms. Therefore, by focussing solely on outer space, humans risk (further) neglecting Earth’s precious environment. Although new private investments in outer space appear to be providing cheaper access to space, space industry discriminations remain. These are evident in differences between nations, the dominance of a select few corporations, and differential access to space and positions in space industries based on gender/sex, race, and class. Such discriminations and prejudices will be replicated in outer space if they are not addressed first on Earth.

 pace Discriminations: Past, Present, S and Future To understand space-related discriminations in greater detail, we now outline their historical prevalence in the Cold War era (past), their continued presence in contemporary global space industries (present), and what the future of space exploration may look like with regard to equality and diversity (future).

In the Past Space industries have featured discrimination since their inception. The STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) disciplines have historically been dominated by white men, with a severe lack of access, opportunity and equality for women, and a corresponding lack of recognition for their work and contributions to astronautics. In the Cold

34 

J. Lampkin and R. White

War era, for instance, women played a vital role in developing, designing, and solving the physics equations required to launch rockets from Earth into outer space (Banks, 2017). Such mathematics were performed by so-called human computers who made calculations using pencil and paper due to the lack of powerful actual computers that would perform such calculations in the present day. Human computers were usually women, perhaps the most famous of whom was Katherine Johnson, one of NASA’s lead scientists. Although Katherine Johnson had a remarkable career recording many scientific achievements, she is perhaps best remembered for her work on the Friendship-7 mission in 1962 which successfully orbited American John Glenn around the Earth three times, echoing the achievements of the Soviets and Yuri Gagarin the previous year. Such was Johnson’s mathematical ability that Glenn would only board the Friendship-7 capsule after Johnson had re-checked and validated computer-­generated orbital calculations. The achievements of women at NASA in STEM roles enabled the United States to explore outer space, catch-up with the Soviet Union which dominated space successes in the early years of Cold War, and (by the end of the 1960s) overtake the Soviet Union by putting Americans on the Moon before any other nation. The complex and often tedious calculations performed by women were paramount to American success (Muir-Harmony, 2019). However, common media depictions of NASA workers and astronauts at that time were of ‘strong, stoical, active and resourceful men. Meanwhile, women, such as the astronauts’ wives, seemingly feature as rather passive, marginalized and abjected’ characters (Sage, 2009: 146). This was undoubtedly a reflection of typical Western gendered stereotypes and discriminations of the mid-twentieth century. Gender discriminations, however, were not the only societal inequality supreme in the Cold War era. Racial tensions also impacted working relationships, which made the achievements of the African-American women at NASA (such as Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson) even more remarkable. Work was undertaken in spite of pervasive racism and sexism. In 1950s and 1960s America, racism was still very high. People like Katherine Johnson were originally referred to as ‘colored-computers’ signifying the racist undertones of ‘professional’ working culture in Cold War America. As Rissman (2018: 15) recalls:

2  The Global Space Industry 

35

Slavery had been abolished in the United States for nearly 100 years when (Katherine) Johnson helped send John Glenn into space. But life for black Americans was still very hard. Many white Americans held onto old beliefs. They thought black people were inferior. Reminders of the way black people had been treated in American history were everywhere. Even the space-­age campus at Langley (NASA) could not escape the past. It was built on land that had once been a plantation. In fact, NACA did not officially buy the land until 1950. This means that employees at Langley spent their days on land that at one time was worked by slaves. [NACA stands for National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, NASA’s predecessor running from 1915-1958].

Such historic gender and racial discriminations are problematic not just from the perspectives of morality, ethics, and philosophy. Outer space is often considered a frontier that could enable humans to start a societal clean slate, one that avoids discrimination and that instead prioritises fairness, equality, diversity, human rights, and open access (Lim, 2020). The difficulty with this is that humans are still humans in outer space and they carry with them their socially constructed views, opinions, beliefs, biases, and prejudices with them off-Earth. As Gorman (2019: 73) explains, ‘spacecraft are far more than just technology; they are woven into systems of politics, belief, and emotion’. Consequently, any institutional discriminations and individual prejudices that exist on Earth will unavoidably be carried into outer space. Unfortunately, terrestrial societies are littered with prejudices and discriminations, and societal inequality is seen in the contemporary makeup of outer space participants which are restricted to just a few economically powerful nations and billionaire entrepreneurs.

In the Present Today, more nations are involved in anthropogenic outer space activities than the Cold War period, particularly in the satellite arm of the space industry. As such, outer space endeavours are certainly more global than they have been historically. However, economic inequality, global capitalism, and the uneven distribution of wealth across the world have resulted in the space industry’s continued domination by just three economically powerful nations—the USA, China, and Russia—as indicated in the

36 

J. Lampkin and R. White

number of annual space launches per country or space agency over five years, from 2018 to 2022 inclusive (see Table 2.1). The USA and Russia are still the two primary participants in the global space industry (i.e., those with the greatest levels of space industry involvement signified by orbital launch frequency). However, the emergence of China in recent years shows how important general economic prowess is to the ability to engage in space activities. Secondary participants are those with an average launch total of less than ten but more than one, which includes the European Space Agency, India, Japan, and Iran. India, Japan, and some space-involved European countries (like Germany, the UK, France, and Italy) also have economically powerful economies. A breakdown of country rank by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Table  2.2 demonstrates how financially strong countries are also the key secondary space industry participants. As can be seen from Table 2.2, all primary and secondary space participating nations are in the top 11 wealthiest countries in the world by GDP. However, Iran is an exception to the rule, being ranked as both a Table 2.2  Gross domestic product per country Rank

Country

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 29 41 50

United States China Japan Germany United Kingdom India France Italy Canada Republic of Korea Russian Federation Brazil Israel United Arab Emirates Islamic Republic of Iran (Data not available) North Korea Source: World Bank (2021)

Most recent year 2021 GDP in $US data available dollars 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2020 2020

22,996,100.00 17,734,062.65 4,937,421.88 4,223,116.21 3,186,859.74 3,173,397.59 2,937,472.76 2,099,880.20 1,990,761.61 1,798,533.92 1,775,799.92 1,608,981.22 481,591.27 358,868.77 231,547.57

N/A

Unknown

2  The Global Space Industry 

37

secondary space participant, but only 50th in the world for GDP. There could be many reasons for Iran’s emerging space prowess. First, Iran is a technologically advanced nation, also recently being the first to develop a vaccine for Covid-19. Second, the government of Iran may spend more money on outer space activities as a proportion of GDP than other countries, or they may simply achieve proportionally more output per money spent. Table 2.1 also alludes to tertiary space participants. They are nations that have either a very low launch rate (such as Israel, the Republic of Korea, and North Korea) or those that have established national space agencies. This mixture of geographically and economically diverse countries demonstrates the interest that many nations have in outer space development. Analysing space involvement through comparing GDP statistics with orbital launch frequency is not perfect. For instance, the United Arab Emirates has achieved much in space, including the successful placement of their hope spacecraft into Martian orbit in 2021. This mission was launched from Japan onboard the Japanese Mitsubishi H-2A rocket which means the UAE are not included in orbital launch statistics despite having sent an orbital spacecraft to Mars. Furthermore, like Iran, the UAE is not ranked very highly by the World Bank (2021) in terms of GDP, despite their space exploration endeavours. Consequently, the tables presented in this chapter are for illustrative purposes, to argue that space exploration needs appropriate financing, and that this is easier to do in economically wealthier nations. Nonetheless, there are contemporary exceptions to this rule. Iran and the UAE, in particular, have demonstrated that much can be achieved in outer space even with lower levels of GDP. Despite such space advances, there are still race, class, and gender inequalities in the global space industry. At the time of writing, the only humans to have walked on the lunar surface are white, American men who benefitted from the Cold War Apollo programme. Furthermore, there is an ongoing lack of gender and ethnic diversity in aerospace with studies reporting only a quarter of the workforce as female. While NASA reported a higher figure of 34% in their 2017 workforce reports, this is still a sign of female underrepresentation. Furthermore, only 11.6% of the NASA workforce consists of black employees, diminishing to just

38 

J. Lampkin and R. White

1.3% for senior-level positions (Williamson, 2020). Ultimately, much more needs to be done in the global space industry to address the gender and race equality gaps that see the underrepresentation and lack of opportunity for women and non-white individuals, particularly in the countries that dominate space-faring (the USA, China, and Russia). For human expansion into outer space to be fairer and more just, substantial changes are needed at policy and institutional levels.

In the Future Although there are myriad problems within the global space industry in terms of gender and racial inequalities in aerospace and STEM disciplines, there are signs that progressive changes are being made. NASA, working with a string of private partners, has been developing its Artemis space programme which aims to inaugurate a more permanent presence on Earth’s Moon which will later facilitate further missions to Mars [Artemis is Apollo’s twin sister in Greek mythology]. Part of this programme will involve the landing of ‘the first woman and first person of colour on the Moon’ in 2025, and exploration of the previously unexplored lunar south pole which is thought to house ice frozen for billions of years having been preserved permanently in the shadows, hidden from the warming sun (Witze, 2022: 2). The extent to which such forthcoming plans for space diversity and open access can be seen as progressive, or merely a media tool to spark interest in outer space, is subject to debate. Although a greater diversity of space visitors in terms of personal characteristics is of course welcomed by most, we must remember that spacecraft and space exploration are ‘woven into systems of politics, belief and emotion’ (Gorman, 2019: 73) and therefore if deep social prejudices continue to exist on Earth, then they are most likely to be replicated in outer space environments. Structures of marginalisation and oppression tend to reproduce themselves wherever they are located.

2  The Global Space Industry 

39

Venturing into Outer Space Furthermore, questions remain about whether we need to be, or should be, venturing into outer space at all. While the global space industry may create jobs and contribute towards economic growth, is it an industry that is essential to human life? There are four differing perspectives regarding the necessity of the global space industry and human space exploration—what can be called the survivalist, cosmologist, conservationist, and preservationist viewpoints. These sit on a spectrum from arguments that support space expansion and exploration on the one hand, to those that hold a more conservative and restrictive standpoint on the other (see Fig. 2.1). A survivalist perspective views space exploration and advancement as vital to human life. Most significantly, space developments since the Cold War have been crucial in transforming many industries, including Internet services, social medias, telecommunications, and banking. As Pelton (2015: 1) explains: Space systems have become so very vital, that if we were suddenly denied access to our space-based infrastructure for weather forecasting and ­warning, for space-based navigation and timing, for civil and military communications, and for remote sensing and surveillance from space we would be in danger. We would suffer almost immediately—economically, militarily, and socially. Many of our transportation and our communications systems would

For Space Expansionism

Survivalist

Cosmologist

Against Space Expansionism

Conservationist

Fig. 2.1  The spectrum of space expansionism

Preservationist

40 

J. Lampkin and R. White

go down along with our weather and rescue services and defence systems. Internet would (lose) its synchronization, credit card validation would no longer work, we would not be alerted to major storm systems, air traffic control, shipping navigation, and trucking routing services would be lost.

Impending plans for the installation of several new mega satellite constellations in the coming years will further enlarge technology-based enterprises on Earth. As a result of this space expansion, terrestrial technology-­based markets will continue to thrive into the mid-twenty-­ first century. Space survivalist arguments also suppose that venturing into space is essential to the survival of the human species which will at some point expend the natural resources on Earth and/or resources will be radically diminished due to climate change. The event of global nuclear warfare would also threaten life on the planet. For expansionism, potential terrestrial annihilation is a worthy reason to invest in space exploration, even if the science that contributes to space travel and colonisation contributes towards that annihilation. As British cosmologist Stephen Hawking in his international bestseller A Brief History of Time observed: ‘our scientific discoveries may well destroy us all’ (Hawking, 1988: 15). Yet, they are also seen to be life-saving and affirming. Like survivalist expansionism, cosmologist accounts of space exploration argue there is considerable value in growing our knowledge and understanding of the solar system, exemplifying human intelligence and inspiring the next generation of STEM recruits through the scientific achievements of their predecessors. Although many argue that the huge costs required to fund public institutions like NASA could be better spent helping the poor and disadvantaged on Earth, scientists such as Brian Cox suggest such considerations get in the way of superior projects that aim to solve the mystery of human existence (Cohen & Cox, 2019: 79). This is essentially an epistemological project—one that asks, ‘who are we’, ‘how did we get here’, and ‘are we alone’? At its heart lies fascination with the question of ontology—that is, the nature and essence of ‘being’—in the context of the universe in its many dimensions. This is the essence of cosmology, which relates to both physics and metaphysics, and chronology and creation.

2  The Global Space Industry 

41

A conservationist viewpoint suggests that anthropogenic outer space undertakings should be limited purely to activities that prevent life-­ threatening events, such as the asteroid impact that exterminated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. However, arguably humans already now have this capability, diminishing the requirement for further development. For instance, in September 2022, NASA’s DART (Double Asteroid Redirection Test) mission sent a spacecraft 11 million miles and intentionally crashed it into Dimorphos, a small moonlet asteroid orbiting its larger companion, Didymos. While the impact did not destroy the asteroid, it did successfully change its orbital path. This mission demonstrated that it may be possible to change the path of an object heading towards the Earth in the future. Such redirection technology does not tell us much about the origins of the solar system, or enable us to expand into the wider universe, but it does help to safeguard life on Earth and protect it from experiencing another catastrophic impact event. To protect human and non-human life on Earth for as long as possible, some level of technological capability is required, but this does not have to be extravagant in scope or destructive of other celestial bodies (except in event of emergency). Finally, a preservationist viewpoint considers human space expansion as an unnecessary evil that threatens life on Earth, rather than preserving it. While such prohibitive accounts are sympathetic to the advantages of lifesaving preventative space technologies that may protect terrestrial life (such as those demonstrated through NASA’s recent DART mission), there is an overall sentiment that historically space advancement has come at an environmental cost to both planet Earth and extraterrestrial bodies subjected to sustained human activity such as the Moon and Mars. Although technological innovation may reduce some of the environmental costs associated with the global space industry, it is unlikely to ever have a completely negligible impact. The detrimental environmental effects of outer space activity, for example, are associated with launching rockets, satellites and spacecraft, and adding to the total celestial body orbital debris count (Lampkin, 2021). Ultimately, preservationist notions of space expansion argue for a re-orientation of thinking, funding, and perspective towards life-preserving terrestrial projects (such as reforestation and reducing global

42 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Table 2.3  Survivalist, cosmologist, conservationist, and preservationist accounts of space expansionism Perspective

Summary

Survivalist

Pro-space expansion, space travel, and space colonisation Space expansion creates jobs, contributes to economic growth, and improves life on Earth through expanding technological capability Cosmologist Pro-space exploration and space science Space expansion enables us to understand more about both our solar system and the universe as a whole and how life has evolved Conservationist Pro-space expansion but only for the purposes of supporting life and preventing life-altering space events such as catastrophic asteroid impacts Preservationist Anti-space expansion in order to protect life on Earth Sympathetic to conservationist accounts but provides overall sentiment that the global space industry has an environmentally negative impact

emissions, for instance) and away from polluting space exploration practices that create environmental harms on Earth. A summary of the four perspectives on space expansionism is presented below (see Table 2.3). Where one sits on the spectrum of space expansionism is likely a result of personal knowledge of the issues, eco-­ philosophical viewpoint, and occupational situation. For instance, it is likely that employees at NASA or the ESA hold expansionist perspectives as they profit, both financially and knowledge-wise, from space expansion initiatives. On the other hand, activists with environmental campaign groups may be more sympathetic to conservationist or preservationist viewpoints, as these are the two accounts most likely to protect life on Earth and reduce environmental harm. Much also depends upon how one interprets the relationship between humans and the extraterrestrial (see Box 2.1). The struggle for survival and the search for new knowledge have their own limitations and ethical boundaries, particularly where additional harms may result. Similarly, there are longstanding debates and frictions about how to interpret and regulate matters of conservation and preservation when it comes to Earth-bound national parks and marine parks. We should not expect anything different when it comes to off-planet considerations.

2  The Global Space Industry 

43

Box 2.1  Humans in Relation to the Extraterrestrial While sometimes presented as a completely new human frontier and/or as a pristine environment, outer space is part of a solar and galactic ecology in which celestial bodies interact with each other (e.g., via gravitational forces) and interact with the same supercharged energy sources (e.g., the Sun). The Earth and Moon, for instance, are tied together in ways that shape and influence the other. Lunar-produced tidal movements affect the Earth’s oceans, and thereby impact human activities such as fishing, travelling, religious ritual, and spiritual awakening. Outer space, like Nature on Earth, is never completely separate from human influence and interaction. Things from space fall to Earth (e.g., meteors), the stars twinkle and the Moon shines in the night sky (e.g., lighting up the Earth landscape), and once in a millennium huge space objects smash into the Earth’s crust sending shock waves worldwide. Conversely, light pollution from Earth fills the near-space domains of the extraterrestrial, and human-made space junk dots not only close-planet orbit but celestial objects further afield within the solar system (such as Mars, Venus, and the Moon). The idea of space being ‘pristine’ reflects the absence of direct human physical presence rather than a state of being as such. To put it differently, ‘pristine’ implies both complete separation from humanity as well as immutable or unchanging conditions, similar to how Nature on Earth is sometimes portrayed (see White, 2013). Yet, global ecology and galactic ecology are both dynamic; each undergoes constant change, this virtually being the definition of life itself. Nothing is static or unchanging. There is no fixed equilibrium but at best mere stability over time. Efforts to ‘preserve’ aspects of outer space, the extraterrestrial domain and specific celestial bodies need to be viewed in this context of ongoing change, mutation, and transformation. Regardless of where we are in the universe, contemporary physics (much less, religious beliefs) indicates that we are all a community of interdependent parts (Greene, 2000). We have connections that transcend space and time. We are intertwined in ways we still do not know much about (e.g., gravitational fields, particles, and forces), which implies we should respect all life forms and, as well, the non-­ living (e.g., rocks and waters). Human actions will inevitably have consequences for outer space environments and the dynamics between bodies in space. The issue is how this can be best managed and how it can be undertaken in ways that are respectful of non-human interests. A vital question is who has or should have the power to choose what kinds of activities be undertaken in outer space, where, and under what circumstances. This is a matter of political economy as much as it is of philosophy and ethics.

44 

J. Lampkin and R. White

We anticipate that future space criminologists will also argue over where criminology as a discipline should sit in regard to space expansionism. This has elements related to how expansion is occurring, by whom, and how those working and living in space will be affected by issues such as crime, harm, and transgression. From the critical criminological perspective, the global space industry will be viewed first and foremost as a profit-making enterprise that is both environmentally damaging and that nurtures state-corporate relationships that result in crimes of the powerful (such as space warfare, discrimination, fraud, and corruption). Other criminologists will focus on how criminology can contribute to the development of human societies in space. For instance, colonising space will require thinking about how crime will be dealt with and investigated in extraterrestrial locales, and how criminal and civil justice systems might operate. In our view, space criminology needs to embrace both these and other approaches in the study of crime in outer space. At one level, we see space criminology as the global space industry’s critical friend, with the aim of promoting diversity, equality, and fairness both on- and off-Earth in the best interests of humans, non-human animals and plants, ecosystems, and celestial bodies. Our underlying philosophy is thus directed at maximising social and ecological justice here on Earth as well as off-planet.

Conclusion The story of space exploration is long and complex. In this chapter, we started by providing historical context, explaining how the global space industry has transitioned from a monopolistic enterprise dominated by the United States and Soviet Union to a more oligopolistic industry displaying an increasing diversity of geographical involvement. While present-­day space exploration is dominated by three major international players, the United States, China, and Russia, other nations and space agencies such as the European Space Agency and India have demonstrated orbital space launch capability. It is clear that numerous countries, including those with no existing space programme until recently such as Australia, believe that there is value in outer space activity and are willing

2  The Global Space Industry 

45

to spend large amounts of money over sustained time periods to develop their own space capabilities. Even some of the world’s economically poorest countries, such as Zimbabwe and El Salvador for example, have established national space agencies, such is the financial and scientific interest in outer space. The elephant in the room, however, remains the contemporary and historical unequal access to space industry jobs and outer space itself, across different nationalities, genders, and ethnicities. Currently, both aerospace and STEM disciplines globally, suffer from unequal representation across different social characteristics, chiefly gender and ethnic diversity. While there are small signs that space exploration may become more explicitly socially inclusive (such as the first woman and person of colour planned to walk on the Moon in the coming years), much more needs to be done to address inequalities pertaining to the global space industry. Space criminology as a field can contribute in its own way to the reduction of space-related environmental harms, as well as to the construction of fairer, more equal justice systems in outer space. This involves critical scrutiny of space expansionism and its potential benefits and drawbacks. As this chapter has also demonstrated, who makes the decisions about space expansionism (e.g., state and/or private entities) and in whose interests this is done (e.g., public or private) will necessarily be at the centre of much discussion, analysis, and action.

References Banks, M.  E. (2017). Half a Century Overdue [Review of the Film Hidden Figures, by T. Melfi]. PsycCRITIQUES, 62(23), 1–5. Cohen, A., & Cox, B. (2019). The Planets. William Collins. Deudney, D. (2020). Dark Skies: Space Expansionism, Planetary Geopolitics, & the Ends of Humanity. Oxford University Press. Gisler, M., & Sornette, D. (2009). Exuberant Innovations: The Apollo Program. Social Science and Public Policy, 46, 55–68. Gorman, A. (2019). Dr Space Junk vs the Universe: Archaeology and the Future. The MIT Press. Greene, B. (2000). The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Vintage Books.

46 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. Bantam Books. Jones, H. (2018). The Recent Large Reduction in Space Launch Cost. In The 48th International Conference on Environmental Systems, 8–12th July 2018, Albuquerque: New Mexico [Online]. Available at: https://ttuir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/74082/ICES_2018_81.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 21 Dec 2022. Lampkin, J. A. (2021). Mapping the Terrain of an Astro-Green Criminology: A Case for Extending the Green Criminological Lens Outside of Planet Earth. Astropolitics: The International Journal of Space Politics and Policy, 18(3), 238–259. Lampkin, J. A., & Wyatt, T. (2022). Widening the Scope of ‘Earth’ Jurisprudence and ‘Green’ Criminology? Towards Preserving Extra-Terrestrial Heritage Sites on Celestial Bodies. In J. Gacek & R. Jochelson (Eds.), Green Criminology and the Law. Palgrave Macmillan. Lim, J. (2020). Charting a Human Rights Framework for Outer Space Settlements. In 71st International Astronautical Congress (IAC)—The CyberSpace Edition [Online]. Available at: https://www.jusadastra.org/assets/ files/IAC-­20,E7,2,11,x60311(1).pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2022. Muir-Harmony, T. (2019). The Women Who Advanced Aerospace. Reviews in American History, 47(2), 263–270. NASA. (2004). Robbert Goddard: A Man and his Rocket [Online]. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/f_goddard.html. Accessed 28 Dec 2022. Pelton, J. N. (2015). New Solutions for the Space Debris Problem. Springer. Pyle, R. (2019). Space 2.0: How Private Spaceflight, a Resurgent NASA, and International Partners are Creating a New Space Age. BenBella Books. Reisman, W.  M. (1990). International Law After the Cold War. American Journal of International Law, 84(4), 859–866. Rissman, R. (2018). Hidden Women: The African-American Mathematicians of NASA Who Helped America Win the Space Race. Capstone Press. Ross, M. N., & Toohey, D. W. (2019). The Coming Surge of Rocket Emissions [Online]. Available at https://eos.org/features/the-­coming-­surge-­of-­rocket-­ emissions. Accessed 19 Dec 2022. Sage, D. (2009). Giant Leaps and Forgotten Steps: NASA and the Performance of Gender. The Sociological Review, 57, 146–163. Siddiqi, A. A. (2010). Competing Technologies, National (ist) Narratives, and Universal Claims: Toward a Global History of Space Exploration. Technology and Culture, 51(2), 425–443.

2  The Global Space Industry 

47

Space Stats Online. (2022). Orbital Launches by Year [Online]. Available at: https://spacestatsonline.com/launches/. Accessed 21 Dec 2022. United Nations. (2022). Worldwide Space Agencies. [Online]. Available at: https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/space-­agencies.html. Accessed 21 Dec 2022. Weinzierl, M. (2018). Space, the Final economic Frontier. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(2), 173–192. White, R. (2013). Environmental Harm: An Eco-Justice Perspective. Policy Press. Williamson, N. (2020). Federal Dollars for all Humankind: Using Procurement Law to Increase Diversity in the Space Industry. Journal of Air Law & Commerce, 85(3), 421–472. Witze, A. (2022). The $93 Billion Plan to Put Astronauts Back on the Moon. Nature, 605, 1–5. World Bank. (2021). GDP (Current US$) [Online]. Available at: https://data. worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?most_recent_value_ desc=true. Accessed 23 Dec 2022.

3 Space Mining

Introduction Mining on Earth has been taking place for thousands of years across diverse geographical locations (land and sea, surface and subterranean). It has taken a multitude of forms owing primarily to the type of resource being mined and the methods required to extract that resource. Now, attention is turning to mining in space, particularly if resources that are scarce on Earth are available and efficient mining techniques can be applied. Criminologists have been quiet about issues pertaining to outer space exploration and expansionism. This includes criminological commentary on extraterrestrial mining. In part, this is because the mining of off-Earth resources remains at a nascent stage. While numerous companies and national governments have expressed interest in mining in outer space, progress remains at a very developmental and theoretical level. This means there have been no specific mining events for criminologists to consider, although, as this chapter demonstrates, there is still much to talk about.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Lampkin, R. White, Space Criminology, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39912-1_3

49

50 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Interestingly, traditional criminologists may be reluctant to be part of this conversation for other reasons. For instance, those who focus on the conventional study of crime and criminal law violations may regard the consideration of outer space mining as beyond the remit of criminological enquiry. This is because there is no specific domestic or international law that explicitly prohibits the mining of celestial bodies or that creates criminal offences in relation to mining operations. Though this chapter will discuss the laws and treaties that reference the national appropriation of matter in outer space, extraterrestrial mining is not usually linked to criminal offences per se. This does not mean, however, that mining in outer space does not present challenges worthy of criminological enquiry. On the contrary, criminologists may be interested in the state-corporate offences that materialise in the expansion of space mining, including at the development and production stages, and within the respective industry supply chains. Outer space mining may also interest scholars researching crimes of the powerful such as offences relating to fraud, bribery, and corruption. Furthermore, criminologists have been active in researching extreme energy production practices on-Earth, and as such, will be interested in the impact of similar types of mining off-Earth.

Background to the Issues Resource extraction involves taking things from somewhere and using them for human purposes. In a space context, this usually refers to extraction of minerals (an active process), but it equally applies to solar energy (a passive process). Each of these, in turn, requires suitable technology to gain value from the extraction. Parenthetically, it might also be noted that extraction can also sometimes involve ‘additions’ as part of the ‘withdrawal’ process. For example, ‘fracking’ on Earth can employ a technique that involves using chemicals to extract the coal-seam gas (Cleary, 2012). Humans interact with Nature in ways that necessarily involves extraction and use of natural resources. This is part of the human condition and is inscribed in how humans live in and with Nature. The key question, therefore, is not whether resource extraction is or should take place, but

3  Space Mining 

51

the way in which it occurs. Specifically, from an eco-justice perspective, the emphasis is on ensuring that the least amount of harm is caused when extracting natural resources, wherever they are located (White, 2013).

Harms Related to Mining From a criminological perspective, the focus on mining is wrapped around considerations of harm as well as criminality. A major issue on Earth, for example, is illegal mining and the threats posed by organised criminal groups in extracting and trafficking precious metals and minerals (Zabyelina & van Uhm, 2020). Land and soils are being destroyed and serious risks posed to vulnerable groups through such activities. The problem with mining, however, is not just the legality or otherwise of the endeavour. If so, then the issue is basically one of licensing (e.g., permits to mine), legislative approval in regard to specific areas (i.e., where it is permitted, including under farmlands), specific thresholds for mining activities (e.g., levels of pollution allowed), and remediation requirements (e.g., rehabilitation of land, post-mining). These are vital matters of public concern and interest. In addition to these issues, however, are considerations stemming from the fact that air, land, and water are directly affected by the extraction (mining) and processing (smelting) of mined substances. Mining processes also contribute greatly to carbon emissions and thus global warming. Human communities are directly and indirectly affected because of pollution of their freshwater sources and the air that they breathe. Waste is a major problem and contamination is associated with toxic sites with significant detrimental consequences for local habitats and human residents (White & Heckenberg, 2014). The track record of legal mining operations is questionable, particularly when assessed globally. What a company does in one country may not be what they do in another—much depends on the regulatory framework and enforcement regime. The size of operations counts, as does whether authorities collude with operations and/or turn a blind eye to detrimental environmental impacts (Klare, 2012; Munro, 2012; Zabyelina & van Uhm, 2020).

52 

J. Lampkin and R. White

A harm perspective is central to green criminological evaluations of the social and environmental harms of mining. It can also be applied to mining operations in outer space. However, in this context, there are no residential communities that might be negatively affected, although the workforce may well be. There are no plants and animals to be affected, although the dynamics of space ecology are still relatively unknown. The ‘environment’ is radically different to that on Earth. The gaining of a ‘social license to operate’ relating to environmental impact is also very different, given the dearth of human residents in outer space, with different stakeholders potentially involved (including, e.g., rights of the Moon activists). All of this reinforces the importance of clarity in what ‘harm’ means in regard to the extraterrestrial.

Extreme Energy Production One problem with mining is that it is targeted almost entirely at non-­ renewable resources such as gold, uranium, coal, and oil. The finite status of such materials means unconventional methods are increasingly being used in excavation when conventional methods become unprofitable or the scarcity of the resource increases. The ‘extreme energy’ industries have developed novel forms of ecologically unsound energy extraction, such as mountain-top removal, deep-water drilling, and hydraulic ‘fracking’ (Crook & Short, 2014). A good example of this is natural gas extraction from deep shale reservoirs. At first, pockets of shale gas were easily accessible to mining companies, leading to ‘smash and grab’ conventional extraction. Wells were drilled vertically into the subsurface to access shale reservoirs which would enable gas to flow to the surface. However, when the wells stopped producing gas, companies began experimenting with how they could increase the productivity, and thus profitability, of each well (Lampkin, 2018). Consequently, through a process of trial and error, the US-based Mitchell Energy and Development company developed a way of drilling a well vertically and then horizontally, enabling more resources to be accessed and collected (Speight, 2013). This horizontal form of drilling is known colloquially as ‘fracking’ owing to the way shale gas is released

3  Space Mining 

53

from the reservoir, whereby the shale rock is ‘fractured’ using high volumes of fluid (water, sand, and chemicals) to produce the required force to split the rock. Fracking through horizontal drilling is considered a form of extreme energy whereby the method of extraction is an extreme version of the simpler, more conventional drilling methods that preceded it (Short et al., 2015). Planet Earth has a unique oxygen-rich atmosphere and contains significant quantities of seawater and freshwater. Accordingly, this has enabled a unique and varied geology to flourish over billions of years. While celestial bodies like Mars and the Moon do house some water, a long history of differing atmospheric conditions has prevented the same rich geology from forming in other extraterrestrial locales, at least over the same timescales as planet Earth. This means extreme energy techniques such as fracking are unlikely to be suitable elsewhere in the solar system. However, space mining companies, engineers, and physicists are currently researching excavation practices that could extract, collect, and transport precious metals and minerals and return them to Earth. Extraterrestrial mining can be viewed as a form of extreme energy production because it requires extreme measures to excavate and return material in outer space, compared to more simplistic, conventional mining practices prevalent on planet Earth. However, not all celestial bodies are suitable for space mining. The gas giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune for instance are all very difficult to access due to their location far from Earth, but also due to their gaseous composition. Similarly, the atmosphere of the planet Venus is too hot and toxic to allow mining, and the surface temperatures of planet Mercury are so volatile that mining there is equally impossible. However, there are some exo-locations that may be more susceptible to space mining based on their geology, composition, proximity to Earth, and atmosphere (or lack of ). These include Earth’s Moon, near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), meteorites, comets, and Mars including the two small Martian moons Phobos and Deimos. Accordingly, we now consider the possibility of mining these locations, some of the techniques required to do so, and the legal status of off-Earth resource mining.

54 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Targets for Space Mining As indicated, there are several key potential mining sites identified in outer space. The closest of these is the Moon.

Mining Earth’s Moon In terms of feasibility and logistics, Earth’s Moon is of interest to mining companies due to its relative proximity to Earth compared with other celestial bodies that are located much further away such as Mars and the asteroid belt (located roughly between Mars and Jupiter). The technology to reach and land on the Moon has existed for many decades, and humans have already walked on the lunar surface. It takes roughly three Earth days of space travel to reach the Moon with current technology, and the lack of atmosphere and gravity makes it relatively easy to land and take-­ off. This is because less force is required to penetrate an atmosphere, and escape strong gravitational pull, as in the case of launching from and returning to Earth. The Moon is also of interest to mining companies due to the elements found there (Sivolella, 2019). These include Helium-3, other Rare Earth Elements (REEs), and large quantities of ice. As such, the Moon could be useful to future space travellers as a place to rest, refuel, and continue on a journey, saving the difficulties associated with take-offs and landings on Earth. The practicability of engaging in lunar activities was of great concern during the cold war era of the 1950s up to 1980s. The United States and former Soviet Union were the only two active space-faring nations at that time and apprehension over attempts to appropriate the Moon under national jurisdiction led to the creation of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) in 1967. Part A of the treaty is the most significant and relevant in terms of attempts to appropriate the Moon (or other celestial bodies) under the flag of a national jurisdiction. Today there are other states with space-­ faring capabilities, including China, India, Japan, the United Kingdom,

3  Space Mining 

55

Canada, Germany, and France. Most countries, including the space-­ faring ones, are members of the Outer Space Treaty, meaning it is arguably the most important treaty relating to activities conducted in outer space. However, there is nothing in the OST that relates specifically to mining the Moon or other celestial bodies. Importantly, the OST reflects the attitudes and concerns of the cold war era in which it was drafted and largely ratified, at which time extraterrestrial mining of resources was not a serious concern or possibility (as it is today). This may reflect the absence of mining practices, specifically, in the OST. Rather, the language used in the OST is employed tactically to address issues of peace, security, equality, and the fair and safe use of outer space by governmental and non-governmental organisations. These were the most important considerations in the cold war era. The Outer Space Treaty was the first medium of international law aimed explicitly at protecting celestial bodies in outer space including the Moon and ensuring international collaboration. However, there are also other areas of international law pertaining to the Moon, such as the Moon Agreement (MA) adopted in 1979. The MA reasserts much of the content of the OST (such as aspects of using the Moon for peaceful purposes) but is aimed specifically at the lunar environment as opposed to other celestial bodies. Unlike the OST, the MA is less widely accepted and only India (of the space-faring nations) has signed the agreement, meaning it does not apply to states not party to the agreement. Therein lies a problem with international law. Although states may initiate repercussions for failing to adopt some international laws, if enough significant parties fail to adopt the agreement, it is rendered insignificant and, consequently, unbinding. Why some states have signed the OST but not the Moon Agreement is open to debate. Perhaps the signing of the OST which already covers lunar activity undermines the necessity to also adopt the MA. Conversely, not signing the MA could give companies and states more leeway in what they can and cannot do on the Moon. Either way, neither the Moon Agreement nor the OST directly address the mining of resources in outer space, and the term ‘activities’ on the Moon are largely undefined and therefore open to interpretation.

56 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Consequently, the failure to include lunar mining in the OST, or more recent amendments to the treaty, renders unregulated mining on the lunar surface a serious possibility. This is problematic given recent interest by private groups in possible Moon-based mining operations. Indeed, companies are now publicly displaying their interest in lunar mining as their mission or corporate objective. According to the Financial Times (2017) and Mordor Intelligence (2022), the following companies are the major players in the new space race, which includes space mining: • • • • • • • • •

iSpace (Japan) Planetary Resources/ConsenSys Inc. (US) Deep Space Industries/Bradford Space (US) Kleos Space (Luxemburg) OffWorld (US) Moon Express (US) Trans Astronautica Corporation (US) Deltion Innovations Limited (US) Asteroid Mining Corporation Limited (UK)

The Moon is not the only extraterrestrial location being primed for space mining; near-Earth asteroids are also under consideration.

Asteroid Mining The OST uses the language ‘moon and other celestial bodies’. However, this terminology is not defined, meaning there is uncertainty around whether asteroids are included. Yet, any serious discussion about space mining must consider asteroids as well as larger planets and moons, due to the feasibility of mining asteroids, and the focus of companies on this type of resource extraction. Humans are close to being able to mine resources on asteroids and other small celestial bodies such as comets, meteorites, and micro-meteorites (see Box 3.1). The theory is rapidly becoming practice.

3  Space Mining 

57

Box 3.1  Asteroid Missions Launching in 2003, the Japanese Hayabusa spacecraft became only the second in history to reach the surface of a near-Earth asteroid, when it used a touch-and-go method of sample collection on Asteroid Itokawa in 2005. It was the first mission to successfully return samples back to Earth after crash-­ landing in Southern Australia in 2010 following a three-year return flight. More recently, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft completed a successful touch-and-go sample collection on Asteroid Bennu. Launching in 2016, the spacecraft reached the asteroid in 2018 with the aim of returning to Earth in 2023. The purpose of the OSIRIS-REx mission is wholly scientific, with the aim of collecting samples of rock for scientific analysis back on Earth (NASA, 2021). It is hoped that doing so will enable scientists to learn more about how planets formed and, ultimately, how life in the solar system began. Hayabusa and OSIRIS-REx are examples of missions that easily satisfy the requirements of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. While there is an environmental cost with building, launching, and returning spacecraft, collecting rock samples is a different practice to commercially mining in outer space for the purposes of resource collection and use for energy (or other business means). They demonstrate that outer space is open for exploration, and that there is the freedom to utilise outer space for scientific purposes (Article I of the OST). The Hayabusa and OSIRIS-REx examples also demonstrate that the technology exists to successfully launch spacecraft, travel to asteroids, collect samples from their surface, and return to Earth. It is therefore reasonable to assume that similar technology could be applied to the mining of other asteroids in the future.

The most favourable asteroids being considered for mining are near-­ Earth asteroids which require less time and energy to reach with spacecraft than asteroids that are further away, such as in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, or the Kuiper belt at the edge of our solar system beyond Neptune.

Martian Mining The possibility of mining Mars is more problematic than the Moon and NEAs because it is so much farther away. The Moon, for instance, is on average 383,917 kilometres from the Earth and takes just three days to reach from the Earth’s surface. Conversely, the Martian system is roughly

58 

J. Lampkin and R. White

63 million kilometres from Earth (at its closest point) and takes approximately seven months to reach from our home planet with current technology. If you imagine the heavy machinery involved in commercial mining on Earth, it is not difficult to conceptualise how challenging it would be to create comparable mining infrastructure as far away as Mars. Despite the distance, humans have sent spacecraft on flyby missions way beyond Mars, demonstrating deep space travel capability. The Voyager-1 spacecraft launched in 1977 for instance is now roughly 24 billion kilometres from Earth at the time of writing. There were also several unsuccessful attempts to land on Mars prior to (and after) the Mars-3 lander which became the first spacecraft to successfully land on Mars in December 1971. Since this mission there have been other successful Mars landings, and ten human-built rovers have roamed the Martian landscape exploring the terrain and feeding the information back to scientists on Earth. While these are small vehicles designed to travel very slowly and gather scientific information, they demonstrate that space travel to, and landing spacecraft on, Mars is possible. Consequently, states and businesses hoping to engage in space mining are learning more about both the geology of Mars, and the technology needed to arrive, land, and conduct operations on the planet’s surface (see Box 3.2).

Box 3.2  Mars Exploration Missions NASA has explored the Martian surface using five robotic vehicles named Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity, and Perseverance. Sojourner was the first rover to explore Mars in 1997, followed by Spirit and Opportunity which landed in January 2004 (NASA, 2020). Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity are now inactive and have stopped sending signals back to Earth. However, the Mars Curiosity and Perseverance rovers are still active. Between them, the Mars rovers have sent many images back to Earth confirming that Mars has a varied, rocky terrain and history of a much wetter past with at least the capability of supporting microbial life. The United States are not the only nation to successfully operate a Martian rover. The Chinese Zhurong rover landed in 2021 with the aim of understanding what Mars looked like in the past. But rovers are not the only scientific instruments exploring the Martian system. Perseverance has (continued)

3  Space Mining 

59

Box 3.2  (continued) a small helicopter, Ingenuity, which has been used as a technology demonstration to test space flight in Mars’ very thin atmosphere. Orbiting spacecraft have also contributed to the scientific understanding of the Martian surface and atmosphere. Overall, there have been many attempted missions to fly to, land on, or orbit the planet Mars, many of which have been unsuccessful. At the time of writing, there are seven active orbiters circling Mars, observing the planet and its climate, taking pictures, and sending data back to Earth (see Table 3.1). The observers, landers and rovers described above have enabled scientists to learn a lot more about the red planet, but also about how life evolves under different conditions. Such knowledge provides an enhanced understanding about our own solar system, the workings of interstellar space and planetary science, and how life on Earth has been able to flourish and evolve into the complex and intelligent forms that we see today.

Martian science has enabled a greater degree of understanding of both the historical geological conditions on Mars, and the current climate, atmospheric conditions, terrain, and subsurface that exists there. From a space mining perspective, companies and states are interested in different elements that exist on Mars which could be useful to humans for the purposes of Martian colonisation, but also to enable deeper space travel beyond Mars. Mining Mars commercially for resources intended to be used or sold on Earth is currently improbable due to the time and cost implications associated with travel to and from Mars, which renders any possibility of Martian mining impractical and uneconomic. Research exploring the possibility of automated robotic Martian excavation is ongoing but still problematic. While the Perseverance rover carries a drill to collect core samples from Martian rock and regolith (superficial deposits covering solid rock), this is a slow process with instructions sent to the rover from scientists back on Earth (Muszynski, 2021). Fully automated Martian robotic excavation is at the research and development stage but may become a possibility in the future. In terms of mining Mars to enhance human operations there, or to enable deeper space travel, in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) is a term applied to represent the extraction of resources to use in the original

60 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Table 3.1  Active orbiters around Mars

orbiter name

Developed by

Hope Orbiter

United Arab Emirates China

Tianwen-1 Orbiter

Arrived in Martian orbit Purpose 2021 2021

ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter

Russia and the 2016 European Space Agency

MAVEN Orbiter

United States

2014

Mangalyaan India Orbiter Mars United States Reconnaissance Orbiter

2014

Mars Express

European Space Agency

2003

Odyssey Orbiter

United States

2001

2006

Studies the Martian atmosphere and how it changes over time Studies the Martian ionosphere, climate, environment, gravity, and magnetic fields through a variety of on-board scientific instruments. Also part of the mission that delivered the Zhurong rover Characterises gases in Mars’ atmosphere searching for compounds like methane (produced from organic matter on Earth) which could be a sign of past life on Mars Studies how the planet loses its atmosphere, investigating how Mars may have lost its water in the past Has an instrument to measure methane in Mars’ atmosphere Studies Mars’ climate and geology. Produces high-­resolution maps of the Martian surface allowing selection of future landing sites Searches for underground water. Discovered water ice at the Martian south pole (previously thought to be frozen carbon dioxide). Has detected methane in Mars’ atmosphere Tracks changes in the Martian surface and relays information between Earth and Martian surface spacecraft

Source: NASA (2020)

place, rather than transporting the resource back for use on Earth. This could include the exploitation of water for human sustenance on Mars (Shishko et  al., 2017) or to help power equipment and spacecraft. Orbiters and rovers have confirmed the existence of both polar ice caps and underground water on Mars which could be mined to generate water

3  Space Mining 

61

supplies or broken down into hydrogen and oxygen for use as fuel (Mellerowicz et al., 2022). Orbiters have also detected methane in the Martian atmosphere. Although more evidence is required to confirm whether the methane is being generated from pre-existing organic matter or not (as on Earth), if this is the case, methane may be a possibility for future Martian mining as a source of propellant. Methane has many purposes on Earth that could also be utilised for Martian settlements, such as to power engines, heat buildings, and generate electricity. An alternative form of ISRU that could be used for harnessing space resources on celestial bodies, including Mars, is biomining. This involves ‘the use of microorganisms to extract and recover valuable metals from minerals and wastes’ (Gumulya et al., 2022: 1). For instance, Volger et al. (2020) suggest the Shewanella Oneisdensis microorganism could be suitable for mining iron from Martian regolith. Similarly, an experiment conducted on the International Space Station (ISS) simulated Martian gravity and tested the ability of microorganisms to leach REEs from basaltic rock in microgravity. They found that this was possible with certain microorganisms which demonstrated ‘the potential for space biomining … to advance human industry and mining beyond Earth’ (Cockell et al., 2020: 1). While there are evidently several possibilities for the development of space mining on Mars, there are also two other places within the Martian system which could be considered for mining, as Mars is accompanied by two small orbiting natural satellites.

Martian Moon Mining Mars has two small irregular-shaped moons. Phobos is the larger of the two, measuring roughly 27 kilometres in length. Deimos is smaller at just 14 kilometres in length. As these are both small celestial bodies compared to planets and other moons, their mining potential is limited. Human-­ made landers are yet to explore the Martian moons, which means their exact composition is unknown. However, they are thought to either be rocky bodies created when Mars was first formed, or individual asteroids pulled into a Martian orbit virtue of Mars’ gravity. This is significant because how the two moons were formed ultimately determines their composition. If they were created from Mars’ formation,

62 

J. Lampkin and R. White

or through some sort of impact with Mars’, their composition will include matter the same as that found on the red planet. If the moons were originally asteroids pulled into orbit through Martian gravity, their material configuration is likely to reflect that of other similar asteroids. Understanding composition will ultimately determine whether future space mining on Phobos and Diemos is feasible and economically worthwhile. It is likely that the composition of the two moons will be known relatively soon as there are plans underway to explore their surface (see Box 3.3). Box 3.3  Phobos Landing and Sample Return Mission Although the Hayabusa and OSIRIS-REx missions described earlier demonstrate contemporary abilities in space travel, they were both touch-and-go only missions. This means the spacecraft descended to the surface of the respective asteroid and used instruments designed to ‘scoop’ surface regolith as a form of material sample collection. Neither event involved the landing of spacecraft on the celestial body. However, a Martian moon landing is planned for this decade. Launching in 2024, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) intend on navigating to both Phobos and Diemos, exploring both satellites, and returning a sample of the Phobos surface to Earth (JAXA, 2023). Although several orbiters have observed Mars’ moons taking photographs of the two satellites, JAXA’s Martian Moons exploration (MMX) mission will be the first to land on Mars’ moons, explore their surfaces, collect samples, and return them to Earth for scientific analysis. Doing so will enable a greater understanding of the composition of the Martian moons, their topography, and whether they contain material that is (economically) suitable for mining, or resources such as hydrogen, helium or methane that could be used as propellants in future space exploration or space mining activities. Although Phobos and Diemos are unlikely space mining candidates, their location proximate to Mars and the Mars-Jupiter Asteroid Belt (M-JAB) is significant. Taylor et al. (2022) suggest it would be easier (energetically and from a time perspective) to access asteroid belt resources using Phobos as a base, than it would be to continually navigate between the Earth and M-JAB asteroids. The composition of Phobos, which may soon be revealed by the JAXA mission, will determine whether it is possible to mine the surface for the purposes of fuel creation, enabling future spacecraft to travel beyond the Martian system for the purposes of M-JAB mining. If it is possible to create propellant from Phobos and Diemos, Zuppero and Landis (1991) suggest this could be used to power spacecraft and ongoing activities in Earth orbit. It is perhaps cheaper and less terrestrially environmentally harmful to power spacecraft in Earth orbit using resources mined from extraterrestrial locations, than it is to use fuel mined on-Earth and launched through Earth’s gravity and atmosphere.

3  Space Mining 

63

The fact humans have successfully planned and designed missions capable of orbiting and landing on other planets millions of kilometres from Earth demonstrates the successes of modern science and technological innovation. But the extent to which humans should be engaging in space exploration and space mining activities is still subject to debate.

Issues for Consideration This chapter has explored the feasibility of space mining operations in off-Earth locales that are being considered for their resource potential such as asteroids, the Moon, and the Martian system. However, currently there is no mining of any of these celestial bodies taking place, despite commercial interest in doing so in the future. This means that now is the right time to be discussing the benefits, costs, and necessity of space mining, that is, before any terrestrial or extraterrestrial harm has taken place due to such mining practices. Considering environmental harm before the industrialisation of a particular practice—in this case, space mining—mirrors the precautionary principle in environmental law. This refers to research and analysis of an anthropogenic production process prior to the commencement of the activity, to determine whether it should be allowed, deferred, or prevented depending on the potential risk and probability of harm. Translating the precautionary principle into practice requires skills and knowledge associated with environmental and social impact assessment (White, 2008).

Eco-philosophy and Mining Harms The necessity to engage in space mining is a philosophical question as well as of one practical capability. This signifies the importance of a space criminology, and of considering outer space within the social sciences more broadly. If we reflect upon mining practices on Earth, such as for coal, oil, and natural gas, we know that high levels of social and ecological harm often ensue (Lampkin, 2018; Zabyelina & van Uhm, 2020).

64 

J. Lampkin and R. White

However, humans are yet to colonise celestial bodies, so the same human health risks associated with Earth mining are not present in off-Earth locales. However, this does not mean space mining will not impact humans living or operating in outer space in the future. The Martian and lunar environments have been proposed as places to house humans conducting scientific research, as places to potentially form off-Earth settlements and communities, or even as a place to send prisoners (Kutner, 1968). Consequently, future space mining could have an impact on future generations of humans who are able to utilise such environments. One way of categorising human relationships with outer space environments is to consider them from the perspective of eco-philosophy or environmental ethics. From our perspective, space criminology needs to include consideration of the non-human as well as human interests in any assessment of crime, harm, and transgression. In relation to space mining, this means that we need to be conscious of the rights of celestial bodies such as the Moon and limit the environmental impacts of mining on other celestial bodies such as asteroids, other planets, and moons of other planets. Both the prospect of mining, and the methods of mining need to come under critical scrutiny, from the point of view of potential damage but also in accordance with notions of what is ethically ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. An anthropocentric perspective precludes such considerations by prioritising natural resource extraction for human purposes (usually under the dictate of corporations and nation-states). We are much more ambivalent about these matters. If we are to step out into space, then tread lightly. That is our approach to space expansionism generally. This is partly a reflection of a broadly ecocentric philosophy. But it also points to the fact that there is still much unknown about the territories and sites that humans wish to exploit in outer space. Unfettered mining, including the use of robotic excavation and heavy industrial machinery, may conflict with other human purposes (such as tourism) as well as leave lasting destructive legacies. Methods of space mining need to be environmentally sensitive, including biomining techniques, in allowing economic and social benefits to be realised. In some instances, certain areas of outer space and particular celestial bodies should be considered as a wilderness to protect rather than sites to fill up

3  Space Mining 

65

or tear apart—leave them empty (of debris, if referring to ‘space’) and untouched (if referring to tangible objects). While the OST has many articles including a prohibition on the national appropriation of celestial bodies, there is no international law specifically forbidding or regulating space mining. Many states and companies have subsequently begun pursuing space mining projects. In fact, Articles I, IX, and XI of the OST make specific reference to the free, unperturbed use of outer space by any nation and/or the ability to ‘conduct activities’ in outer space. ‘Activities’ could include space mining or variations of such practices, such as biomining or ISRU to support space infrastructure or to produce propellant. Aside from philosophical beliefs influencing what, where and how to engage in space mining, there are also pragmatic considerations to take into account in assessing these issues.

Pros and Cons of Space Mining To inform our understanding of and responses to space mining, it is critical to consider the possible future capabilities of space mining. There are many reasons why mining is problematic from a harm perspective but there are also positive motivations for space mining as well. These are considered further here.

Advantages of Space Mining Mining on Mars or the Moon could help create and sustain research bases on these celestial bodies enabling humans to understand more about the history and evolution of the universe and planets specifically. Utilising resources that already exist on the Moon and Mars bypasses the need to mine and manufacture resources from Earth, and launch them into outer space, both processes of which create environmental harm. While Martian and lunar rovers are already providing valuable insight and data into the topography and geology of both celestial bodies, much more could be achieved by having permanent research stations on the Moon and Mars. Such scientific research could possibly also address the resource and energy problems that exist on Earth.

66 

J. Lampkin and R. White

As mentioned earlier, mining on-Earth is requiring more unconventional and environmentally harmful methods of production (like fracking) as the more accessible and conventional energy supplies dwindle. In order to reduce the need to create energy on-Earth to facilitate terrestrial activities, outer space could be utilised as a form of energy generation that avoids the social and ecological harms associated with terrestrial energy production. For instance, energy from the sun could be harnessed 24 hours a day from space, as opposed to the limitations of harvesting solar energy in daylight hours on Earth. Similarly, solar winds could be developed to provide energy on Earth. A long-term renewable energy solution from outer space could have positive impacts for terrestrial economies, particularly developing nations where electricity and other energy technologies are less advanced and accessible to the masses than more wealthy nations. Some terrestrial renewable energy systems such as solar units, wind turbines, different battery types, and fuel cells require minerals that are scarce on Earth but found in abundance on other celestial bodies. For instance, Dallas et  al. (2021) suggest that lithium, gallium, selenium, silver, indium, tellurium, platinum, and other REEs are either relatively scarce on Earth or their production is threatened by a variety of social and geopolitical factors. However, both the Moon and certain NEAs contain some of these elements which, if mined, would largely avoid terrestrial environmental and social harms, and political trade and supply tensions. Despite these compelling arguments in support of space mining activities, there are nonetheless other reasons why mining in outer space is problematic.

Disadvantages of Space Mining Outer space is largely untouched by humans and is a relatively ‘pristine’ environment that has created a sense of wonder in the human consciousness for many centuries. Human activities in outer space risk disturbing and damaging such unique environs. Humans have caused mass environmental harm on planet Earth through the exploitation of natural resources and contamination of habitats and oceans. There is nothing to suggest that mining excavation and manufacturing processes off-Earth would not

3  Space Mining 

67

create similar types and levels of environmental damage (Takemura, 2022). A key difference appears to be the lack of human, non-human species, and ecological impact of space mining compared to terrestrial mining activities. However, excessive space mining could negatively impact workers operating in these locales. They could also destroy matter in outer space in ways that cause impacts that are yet unknown (e.g., disrupting gravitational fields). Additionally, creating a space mining and manufacturing process in outer space could create environmental and atmospheric harm on Earth. Although ISRU would offset some of this harm, launching rockets through Earth’s atmosphere and fragile ozone layer creates environmental harm through emissions pollutions. Some level of terrestrial rocket launching would always be required to setup and facilitate mining activities in outer space. The advantages and disadvantages of space mining require more thought and action before mining operations progress too far along (see Table 3.2). Table 3.2  Advantages and disadvantages of space mining Advantages of space mining

Disadvantages of space mining

1. Mining outer space resources can help advance our understanding of the universe and planetary science 2. Utilising resources in outer space (such as from the sun or solar winds) may help address unsustainable energy creation and use on-Earth

1. Outer space is a unique and mostly undisturbed place that should remain untouched 2. The focus of space mining should not be to make profit in a way that damages celestial bodies (the same way energy companies have created mass environmental harm on Earth) 3. Space mining should not cause long-term damage to Earth’s environment and atmosphere, such as through excessive rocket launching 4. Space mining should not be undertaken for the purposes of celestial colonisation or space tourism, where the Earth system is not benefitting from the mining activity

3. Minerals off-Earth may be useful to sustain renewable energy systems on-Earth

4. Renewable energy systems on-Earth have limitations. Solar power, for instance, requires the sun to produce energy, but the Earth rotates in a way that creates night and day. Solar rays could be harnessed 24 hours a day in strategic places in outer space

68 

J. Lampkin and R. White

The point of this chapter is that we need to raise these issues now, before the mining juggernaut builds up further steam (Takemura, 2019). Taking precaution is prudent. So, too, is understanding the nexus between nation-states and corporations and identifying whose interests are represented in such alliances. Considerations of eco-justice as these apply to space exploration and expansion should never be far from the surface.

Conclusion How and whether space mining should be undertaken and further developed is a matter of informed opinion and eco-philosophy, as well as technique and technology. This chapter has reviewed current developments in regard to mining on the Moon, asteroids, Mars, and the moons of Mars. Mining is used for both scientific purposes and the extraction of minerals for commercial profit. The chapter also outlined compelling arguments both for and against such developments. What has not been discussed is the working conditions and living arrangements required to undertake human-supervised operations. This will be examined later in the book. For now, our intention has been to raise matters of general concern in relation to space mining, and thus contribute to the longer-term process of evaluating the conditions under which it ought to take place. From a harm point of view, there are ambiguities here that need to be further unpacked, particularly with respect to energy sources in outer space and their implications for energy use on Earth. For space criminology, there are rarely straightforward answers to the imponderables and conundrums associated with human forays into outer space.

References Cleary, P. (2012). Mine-Field: The Dark Side of Australia’s Resources Rush. Black Inc. Cockell, C.  S., Santomartino, R., Finster, K., Waajen, A.  C., Eades, L.  J., Moeller, R., Rettberg, P., Fuchs, F. M., Van Houdt, R., Leys, N., & Coninx,

3  Space Mining 

69

I. (2020). Space Station Biomining Experiment Demonstrates Rare Earth Element Extraction in Microgravity and Mars Gravity. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–11. Crook, M., & Short, D. (2014). Marx, Lemkin and the Genocide-Ecocide Nexus. The International Journal of Human Rights, 18(3), 298–319. Dallas, J. A., Raval, S., Saydam, S., & Dempster, A. G. (2021). Investigating Extraterrestrial Bodies as a Source of Critical Minerals for Renewable Energy Technology. Acta Astronautica, 186, 74–86. Financial Times. (2017). Interplanetary Players: A Who’s Who of Space Mining [Online]. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/fb420788-­72d1-­11e7-­9 3ff-­99f383b09ff9. Accessed 1 July 2022. Gumulya, Y., Zea, L., & Kaksonen, A. H. (2022). In Situ Resource Utilisation: The Potential for Space Biomining. Minerals Engineering, 176(107288), 1–12. JAXA. (2023). MMX Martian Moons Exploration [Online]. Available at: https:// www.mmx.jaxa.jp/en/. Accessed 23 Mar 2023. Klare, M. (2012). The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt. Kutner, L. (1968). A World Outer Space Prison: A Proposal. Denver Law Journal, 45(5), 702–718. Lampkin, J. A. (2018). Will Unconventional, Horizontal, Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas Production Purposes Create Environmental Harm in the United Kingdom? [Online]. Available at: http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/ eprint/35711/1/Jack%20Lampkin%20PhD%20Thesis.pdf. Accessed 13 July 2022. Mellerowicz, B., Zacny, K., Palmowski, J., Bradley, B., Stolov, L., Vogel, B., Ware, L., Yen, B., Sabahi, D., Ridilla, A., & Nguyen, H. (2022). RedWater: Water Mining System for Mars. New Space, 10(2), 166–186. Mordor Intelligence. (2022). Space Mining Market – Growth, Trends, Covid-19 Impact and Forecasts (2022–2027) [Online]. Available at: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-­r eports/space-­m ining-­m arket-­i ndustry. Accessed 1 July 2022. Munro, S. (2012). Rich Land, Wasteland – How Coal is Killing Australia. Pan Macmillan Australia. Muszynski, M. (2021). New Software, New Drill Target, and an Existential Question [Online]. Available at: https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/ status/347/new-­s oftware-­n ew-­d rill-­t arget-­a nd-­a n-­e xistential-­q uestion/. Accessed 12 July 2022. NASA. (2020). Mars Exploration Historical Log [Online]. Available at: https://mars. nasa.gov/mars-­exploration/missions/historical-­log/. Accessed 23 Mar 2023.

70 

J. Lampkin and R. White

NASA. (2021). OSIRIS-REx [Online]. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/ osiris-­rex. Accessed 1 July 2022. Shishko, R., Fradet, R., Do, S., Saydam, S., Tapia-Cortez, C., Dempster, A. G., & Coulton, J. (2017). Mars Colony in Situ Resource Utilization: An Integrated Architecture and Economics Model. Acta Astronautica, 138, 53–67. Short, D., Elliot, J., Norder, K., Lloyd-Davies, E., & Morley, J. (2015). Extreme Energy, ‘Fracking’ and Human Rights: A New Field for Human Rights Impact Assessments? The International Journal of Human Rights, 19(6), 697–736. Sivolella, D. (2019). Space Mining and Manufacturing: Off-World Resources and Revolutionary Engineering Techniques. Springer Praxis Publishing. Speight, J. G. (2013). Shale Gas Production Processes. Elsevier. Takemura, N. (2019). Astro-Green Criminology: A New Perspective Against Space Capitalism. Toin University of Yokohama Research Bulletin, 40, 7–16. Takemura, N. (2022). Extraterrestrial Super Intelligence and Energy-and-­ Resource Control in the Star, Galaxy, and Universe: Prospect of Ultimate Astro-Green Criminology. Toin University of Yokohama Research Bulletin, 47, 27–37. Taylor, A. J., McDowell, J. C., & Elvis, M. (2022). Phobos and Mars Orbit as a Base for Asteroid Exploration and Mining. Planetary and Space Science, 214(105450), 1–8. Volger, R., Pettersson, G. M., Brouns, S. J., Rothschild, L. J., Cowley, A., & Lehner, B. A. (2020). Mining Moon & Mars with Microbes: Biological Approaches to Extract Iron from Lunar and Martian Regolith. Planetary and Space Science, 184, 1–9. White, R. (2008). Crimes Against Nature: Environmental Criminology and Ecological Justice. Routledge. White, R. (2013). Environmental Harm: An Eco-Justice Perspective. Policy Press. White, R., & Heckenberg, D. (2014). Green Criminology: An Introduction to the Study of Environmental Harm. Routledge. Zabyelina, Y., & Van Uhm, D. (Eds.). (2020). Illegal Mining: Organized Crime, Corruption, and Ecocide in a Resource-Scarce World. Palgrave Macmillan. Zuppero, A., & Landis, G. A. (1991). Mass Budget for Mining the Moons of Mars [Online]. Available at: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991rnes.nasa... 24Z/abstract. Accessed 12 July 2022.

4 Space Junk

Introduction The accumulation of space junk in Earth’s atmosphere is the most immediate environmental issue pertaining to humans’ relationship with outer space. As of 2022, there are more than 9500 metric tonnes of material orbiting the Earth at extreme speeds in excess of six kilometres per second. This debris consists of over 100 million individual pieces, many of which are very small and created through orbital collisions or explosions (NASA, 2022). There are 25,000 known objects of at least ten centimetres (cm) in length including large objects, non-functioning satellites, and small debris fragments. This chapter discusses the nature and dynamics of space junk. After presenting background to the phenomenon, it outlines the scope of the problem before examining possible mitigation strategies. As near-Earth space fills up, space junk will increase. As it increases, so will the potential harms. Failures to take responsibility and to be held accountable will continue to hinder action around this issue. Yet, as the chapter makes clear, space expansionism will be heavily impacted by what is in orbit around planet Earth now and into the future. The chapter also points to an increase in space junk in extraterrestrial locations beyond Earth orbit. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Lampkin, R. White, Space Criminology, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39912-1_4

71

72 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Background to the Issues Space junk is a contemporary phenomenon that began in 1957 when the first satellite, Sputnik-1, was launched into Earth orbit by the former Soviet Union. Prior to 1957, there was no space junk. Earth’s atmosphere was clean, unspoiled, and free from debris. As with much environmental harm, space junk has been created with scant regard to the space environment. Although the Outer Space Treaty (OST) addresses loosely what can and cannot be done in outer space including Earth orbit, it does not specifically mention orbital debris or space junk. In fact, space debris ‘cannot be found in any of the five United Nations outer space treaties nor in any legally binding treaties aimed at protecting the environment’ (Su, 2017: 73). In the mid-1960s when the OST was being drafted, there were very few pieces of space junk and, consequently, debris creation was of little concern. This is a commonly cited reason as to why debris was not included in the OST (Ferreira-Snyman, 2013). Ultimately, the OST reflects Cold War attitudes and tensions of the time and today offers little protection to the space environment. Despite contemporary concerns about space junk, developments on Earth will undoubtedly facilitate further, possibly exponential, rises in orbital debris as launches into outer space are expected to rapidly increase in the coming decades. As discussed earlier in the book, space science and technology have historically been funded by national governments. But now there is an increasing interest in space resources and development from private companies and powerful individuals which suggests there is money to be made from outer space. For example, two of the richest men in the world are aggressively pursuing commercial space operations. Elon Musk’s SpaceX has the stated mission of making humans interplanetary and, in 2020, succeeded in becoming the first private company to take humans into space (SpaceX, 2022). Similarly, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic (2022) is the world’s first commercial ‘space-line’, taking wealthy individuals briefly into outer space to view the Earth for the sum of US$450,000. These new, private investments in outer space should be of concern to criminologists researching crimes of the powerful and environmental harms, in part because launching spacecraft into or through Earth orbit creates orbital debris and atmospheric emissions pollution.

4  Space Junk 

73

On the other hand, a positive aspect of these developments from a private investment perspective is that more funds may be available to clean up Earth orbital space. At present, it is much easier, less time-­ consuming, and importantly, cheaper to leave debris in space than it is to remove it. Although it remains to be seen, private involvement in outer space may encourage big companies to cleanse near-Earth space. It is much easier to launch spacecraft through a clear atmosphere than to navigate through and avoid existing orbital debris. The best interests of private companies may well be to purify Earth orbit so they can continue to explore outer space. Having said this, it is still the case that serious and pervasive orbital debris removal operations are yet to materialise. This could ultimately have a devastating effect for vehicles and satellites traversing Earth orbit in the future. For instance, further debris creation may lead to a state of Kessler Syndrome (KS), a theory developed in the late 1970s by Donald J. Kessler. KS is essentially a domino effect of debris creation whereby one collision event creates a greater number of debris pieces (than there were before the event), increasing the likelihood of more collisions and break-­ ups in the future (Kessler et al., 2010). Eventually, with enough individual pieces of debris developed from enough spacecraft and enough collisions, a debris belt would be created around the Earth, engulfing any object or spacecraft trying to pass through it (Lyall & Larsen, 2018).

Understanding Orbital Debris Space junk and orbital debris are interchangeable terms used to describe matter in outer space that serve no useful purpose. This could be dead satellites, collision fragments, or payloads and rocket bodies left over from launching rockets into space. While these all represent different human-space activities, their common denominator is an inactive, non-­ functioning status. Space junk refers to non-functioning anthropogenic material that has been abandoned off-Earth, usually in Earth orbit, but also in other extraterrestrial locations. This often includes satellites, robots, rockets, and their associated parts (Lampkin & South, in press).

74 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Terrestrial Issues While the difference between space junk and active, functioning satellites may appear clear-cut, Gorman (2019) argues that defining when an orbital object becomes ‘dead’ and therefore inactive ‘junk’ is in practice quite difficult. In the case of satellites, it could be that scientists stop interacting or ‘listening’ to the satellite due to a lack of commercial need, or when a satellite’s core mission has been fulfilled. It could also be that Earth technologies are failing to receive signals, satellites have momentarily stopped sending messages, or they have gone into power-saving mode to preserve energy for the future. Ultimately, the sources of space debris are diverse. They include: • • • • • • • •

Accidental collisions between satellites or other pieces of debris Explosions Fragments from anti-satellite (ASAT) tests Unknown break-up or deterioration Intentional non-retrieval of non-functioning satellites and spacecraft Lost equipment Payloads, rocket bodies and mission-related debris Break-ups from aerodynamics or anomalous separation

Several things can happen to orbital debris depending on the size and mass of the object and its orbit type. Some objects in high orbits will remain there for thousands of years (see Fig. 4.1). These are known as graveyard orbits that are used strategically to keep inactive material and non-functioning satellites away from operational spacecraft in lower Earth orbits to avoid collisions. Other debris is moved intentionally closer to Earth where it will usually burn up upon re-entering Earth’s atmosphere, pulled in by Earth’s gravity. However, some objects that are too large to burn up will survive atmospheric re-entry and controlled landings are undertaken. These are usually targeted at oceanic environments minimising the risk of harm to humans on land (Lampkin & Wyatt, 2023). Occasionally though, orbital objects re-enter Earth’s atmosphere in an uncontrolled fashion, and spacecraft have crash-landed on the Earth’s surface, infrequently injuring humans.

4  Space Junk 

75

Millenia (c.40,000km) Centuries (1,000km) Decades (800km) Years (550km) Weeks (250km) Earth

LEO

GEO

Fig. 4.1  Orbital debris decay including geostationary orbit and low Earth orbit. (Source: https://spaceexplored.com/2022/02/17/starlink-­expanding-­coming-­to-­ dragon-­capsule-­on-­polaris-­dawn-­but-­nasa-­has-­concerns-­about-­the-­constellation/)

Although there are disparate reasons for space debris, they do not all contribute to the overall number and mass of debris fragments equally. Furthermore, small debris (lesser than 1 cm) is too small to track, and for many debris fragments, it is difficult to accurately identify their origin. However, it is estimated that of the 550 fragmentation events that occurred between 1957 and December 2020, 39.52% were created through explosions and 23.77% were intentionally destructed (see Table 4.1).

76 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Table 4.1  Sources of orbital debris from confirmed fragmentation events

Debris Origin

Estimated contribution to space debris (%)

Propulsion

39.52

Intentional destruction

23.77

Unknown

14.29

Anomalous

5.64

Accidental collision

9.01

Electrical failures

6.4

Accidental break-up Aerodynamics

0.8 0.56

Description Spacecraft can contain fuel and other energy sources that can explode when under heat stress Includes anti-satellite testing as well as spacecraft designed to explode if atmospheric re-entry goes wrong Insufficient evidence to accurately qualify what led to the fragmentation event Unplanned separation of objects overtime, such as due to degradation Between functioning and non-­ functioning satellites, spacecraft, and other debris objects Resulting from electrical systems failings, usually from overcharged batteries exploding Resulting from design flaws Atmospheric drag can over-pressurise material in orbit leading to a break-up event

Source: Adapted from Chobotov (2002) and Stakem (2018)

Table 4.1 does not represent an exhaustive list of all debris-creating events, and consequently, the true estimated contribution to orbital debris is still unknown. However, it does serve as a useful indication of the type of debris-creating events that have occurred over the last 50 years, enabling a deeper understanding of debris formulation. Propulsion and intentional destruction of satellites are the two largest contributors to orbital debris creation. Propulsion issues demonstrate the imperfect nature of human scientific endeavour—technology (i.e., launching rockets, satellites, and spacecraft) can be utilised, but only given a significant environmental cost in the form of space junk creation. The intentional destruction of satellites also has a distinctly criminological dimension. This is because it is linked not only to civilian

4  Space Junk 

77

protective actions but also to militarily aggressive actions. Obliteration of this kind may be the best solution to avoid an uncontrolled re-entry that could endanger human life. However, anti-satellite (ASAT) testing is basically designed to prepare for military warfare. This issue will be discussed in greater depth further below. Before doing so, we can highlight that the space junk phenomenon is not just limited to planet Earth.

Extraterrestrial Issues Since the dawn of the space age in the mid-twentieth century, humans have littered many off-Earth environments with satellites, spacecraft, and various scientific apparatus. For instance, there are several satellites orbiting Mars in order to learn more about the planet’s atmosphere and topography. Ultimately, these satellites will eventually stop working as with Earth satellites. However, less is known about what will happen to them when they become inactive. First, they could continue to orbit the red planet held there indefinitely by Martian gravity. Second, they could burn up in the Martian atmosphere similar to objects re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. However, Mars’ atmosphere is much thinner than Earth’s so the present state of understanding of re-entry burn-up is weak. Alternatively, inactive Martian satellites may crash-land on the planet’s surface, or they might somehow be collected and rescued by humans, salvaged, and re-used. Finally, Martian orbital debris could spin out of the planet’s gravity into empty space. Although the quantity and mass of anthropogenic matter orbiting Mars is considerably less than that of Earth, Suchantke et al. (2020: 440) affirm that ‘eight out of 14 orbiting (human-made) objects in Martian orbit are inactive, so one could say more than half of the (spacecraft) population around Mars is already debris’. There is also the issue of avoiding satellite collisions in Martian orbit, and collisions with the two small Martian moons, Phobos and Diemos. This could be problematic for future spacecraft attempts to land on or take-off from the red planet, as they must avoid colliding with orbital objects in order to achieve a successful mission.

78 

J. Lampkin and R. White

While Martian debris accumulation is challenging for the reasons outlined, there is a much larger quantity of orbital debris and space junk that is of environmental concern for Earth’s Moon. Due to the lack of atmosphere, objects pulled in by the Moon’s gravity will not burn up and disintegrate, presenting a risk for lunar rovers and future human inhabitants and lunar stations should these materialise. Furthermore, there will be no splash-landings on the Moon (as on Earth) due to the lack of large expanses of water. As well, although Earth has a unique ability to heal and repair itself, the same cannot be said of the Moon, meaning lunar impacts will leave a longer-lasting impression. These considerations have led Newman and Williamson (2018: 33) to describe the Moon as an even ‘more fragile environment’ than the Earth, one that is very sensitive to the impacts of human activity and exploration. Lunar orbiters are also problematic when the KS theory is applied. A build-up of lunar orbital debris and collision events may have a greater on-orbit impact here than Earth because there is much less lunar orbital space. This is due to the comparably small size of the Moon compared to Earth, with the Moon being roughly one-quarter of Earth’s diameter (Aderin-Pocock et al., 2014). Less space simply leads to a higher statistical chance of a collision. There are plans for a lunar space station and lunar satellite constellations in the near future to facilitate further scientific understanding of the lunar environment, and to assist permanent human operations there (Zhang et al., 2022). But more anthropogenic objects mean there will be even more lunar orbital space junk in the future. Moon junk, however, is not merely limited to lunar orbiters. A variety of matter exists on the lunar surface from a long history of human-lunar exploration commencing from the 1950s. Moon junk largely consists of spacecraft that have crash-landed, defunct robots and rovers, abandoned scientific equipment, and the remains of spacecraft, launch vehicles and landing apparatus that have fragmented over the lunar surface. Some view terrestrial space junk as necessary to modern human life, and extraterrestrial junk as an essential by-product to activities that are vital to scientific understanding. Others view space junk from a cultural perspective, as material that has significance to the people, companies and nations that launched them (see Lampkin & Wyatt, 2022). Space archaeologists study the cultural importance that space objects have to

4  Space Junk 

79

people on-Earth, viewing such exploration as a way to mark our (human) existence off-Earth for any future space-farers. For others, filling outer space with anthropogenic matter is yet another form of pollution that is either a result of poor planning or a mindset that prioritises mission goals with scant regard for off-Earth environments. Regardless of one’s perspective, the accumulation of space debris causes several problems, particularly in Earth orbit. It is also clear that both domestic and international law have failed to adequately protect off-­ Earth orbits and environments, due to the existence of Earth orbital and extraterrestrial space junk as discussed thus far. The next section digs deeper into both the problems created by space debris, and the current and historical legal issues associated with the existence of space junk.

Problems Created by Orbital Debris One of the most pressing consequences of Earth orbital debris is that a cluttered orbit inhibits star-gazing and practicing astronomy from the Earth’s surface. Space junk can block an observer’s view of outer space, thereby causing confusion over the origin of the object in view. Junk can also create light pollution which impacts the ability to observe clearly and at different distances. A crucial problem for future space ventures is that rockets launched through Earth orbit must now avoid space debris. This adds to the difficulty of launching spacecraft as paths to avoid debris need to be calculated prior to launch. Due to the expensive nature of building spacecraft, colliding with orbital debris in a way that leads to mission failure would render years of work and science futile. Orbital debris is also challenging because it can destroy active satellites that are used for everyday life on Earth. While there are many different altitudes to Earth orbit creating a great deal of space for satellites to function, collisions do occur. For instance, in 2009, the active US Iridium-33 satellite struck the defunct Russian Cosmos-2251 satellite creating approximately 200,000 new pieces of orbital debris of one centimetre or greater (Lampkin, 2021). While such events are expected to be rare, they may increase in frequency as Earth orbit becomes ever-more cluttered with

80 

J. Lampkin and R. White

satellites and debris. This is concerning because the destruction of functioning satellites could have severe consequences for people on Earth due to the human reliance on satellite infrastructure. For example, from space, satellites can ‘provide information and services to support global communications, the economy, security and defence, safety and emergency management, the environment and health’ (Canadian Space Agency, 2020: 1). Space junk also causes issues for space stations and poses a threat to the astronauts that occupy them. Although the International Space Station (ISS) only needs to manoeuvre roughly once per year to avoid debris, collision with a debris piece could be catastrophic. As Buslov et al. (2019: 54) point out, an ISS impact with debris could cause a ‘breakdown and depressurisation of the module’ as well as ‘crew hypoxia, wounding and death of crew members’. Solutions to avoid space station impacts with orbital junk include dodging the debris, or creating protective shields to deflect objects, keeping the station intact. While this may provide a short-­ term reactive solution, increased quantities of space junk will make it more difficult for inhabited spacecraft to operate safely in Earth orbit. The same applies to the proposed space station in lunar orbit. Another threat from orbiting space junk concerns humans, non-­human animals, plants, and ecology on planet Earth. As alluded to earlier in the chapter, one of the disposal methods for debris removal is to re-­enter the satellite back into Earth’s atmosphere at the end of its useful life, to avoid having to store the object in a long-term graveyard orbit. Small satellites that re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere will completely burn up due to atmospheric drag which creates heat, transforming the object into gaseous waste. Although this overcomes the problem of having a defunct physical object to deal with, burning-up creates environmental harm through the release of carbon, any onboard fossil-fuel propellants, and other onboard elements contaminating Earth’s upper atmospheres. This is due to entropy and the law of thermodynamics. Matter cannot be destroyed, only transformed into less organised forms (Stretesky et al., 2014). Some objects that are re-entered into Earth’s atmosphere are too large to burn up and therefore approach Earth in one of two ways. The first is re-entry of a controlled manner whereby the trajectory is calculated to ensure the object hits a part of Earth that is distanced from as many humans as possible, reducing the likelihood of injury. The point on Earth

4  Space Junk 

81

furthest from any land mass is point nemo in the Pacific Ocean, lying roughly between New Zealand, Chile, and Antarctica. Also known as the space cemetery, or pole of inaccessibility, point nemo will be the likely final resting place of the ISS and has already accumulated over 263 pieces of space junk including the large Soviet Mir Space Station (De Lucia & Iavanicoli, 2018). Point nemo is beyond areas of national jurisdiction and, consequently, there is less incentive to clean up defunct space objects that land there. However, space debris may be harmful to the non-human animals and marine ecologies that occupy areas around point nemo due to the hazardous materials and excess propellants that they may contain. The second approach for large objects unable to burn up upon re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere is an uncontrolled re-entry. This occurs when an operator is unable to control the satellite due to lack of fuel, technological malfunction, or communication failure. Uncontrolled re-entries mean debris cannot be targeted at point nemo, but instead return to Earth in a more random way. Consequently, uncontrolled re-entry creates a hazard for humans, non-human animals, plants, and ecologies on both land and in oceanic environments. Although the chances of being struck by a piece of orbital debris are staggeringly small, such events have occurred. In 1997 while exercising in a local park, Lottie Williams was hit by a piece of metal from a Delta II rocket in Oklahoma but, fortunately, was uninjured (Mullick et al., 2019). Uncontrolled re-entry also poses a risk to aviation as private and commercial spacecraft navigate through near-­ Earth space (El-Sayed, 2022). As with point nemo, land animals and ecology may suffer harm from objects impacting them or though exposure to hazardous materials. There are other solutions to tackling the orbital debris problem beyond re-entry. These include navigation to graveyard orbits, capturing debris, and disincentivising unnecessary orbital space interactions.

Space Junk Mitigation Measures The simplest and cheapest way to tackle orbital debris is to refrain from creating it in the first place. Taking a precautionary approach to satellite and spacecraft launch and only doing so for essential purposes, would limit the number and mass of objects in Earth orbit. For instance, the

82 

J. Lampkin and R. White

setup and maintenance of weather forecasting and GPS satellites are more important to human health and survival than those satellites that facilitate social media use. Although debris prevention is a guaranteed way to reduce the long-­ term continued increase of space junk in Earth’s atmosphere, it does not address the short-to-medium term problem of managing existing orbital debris. Consequently, there are currently many guidelines and strategies concerning space junk mitigation, space traffic management, and space situational awareness. These concepts aid somewhat in managing the orbital debris problem that presently exists. Such guidelines include those created in 2007 by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) which help companies and agencies who seek to avoid debris creation. Lyall and Larsen (2018: 276–278) suggest the guidelines have seven important elements which include: 1. Limiting the debris created from normal operations through consideration in the design, planning and construction stages. 2. Minimising the potential for on-orbit break-ups during the operational life of the spacecraft. 3. Limiting the probabilities of accidental collisions in space by tracking space objects and conducting manoeuvres that navigate around other debris pieces and objects. 4. Avoiding intentionally destructing objects or conducting any other harmful activities that may lead to debris creation, such as anti-­ satellite testing. 5. Minimising the potential for post-mission orbital break-ups that result from explosions and onboard energy. This involves burning all fuel and discharging batteries. 6. Limiting the long-term presence of spacecraft in valuable low Earth orbits by conducting re-entry which ensures debris burn up. 7. Avoiding using higher orbits for storing spacecraft at the end of their active life. While the above measures may have noble intentions for avoiding debris creation and mitigating the impacts of existing debris, the fact remains that ‘the mitigation for space debris is a matter of voluntary

4  Space Junk 

83

action, not of clear legal duty’ (Lyall & Larsen, 2018: 270). A lack of enforcement has led to a cluttered orbital environment that has, and will continue to, accrue more space junk in the future. A further aforementioned mechanism for tackling orbital debris is to navigate satellites to high, graveyard orbits at the end of their working life. Doing so ensures they do not come into contact with orbits housing functional, operational satellites. However, there are two major problems with utilising such orbital ranges. First, they do not address the debris accumulation problem. While higher orbits enjoy much more space than lower orbits, if more defunct objects are placed there, this still increases the risk of accidental collisions. Such accidents create even more individual pieces of debris, placing added constraints on Earth-based astronomical observations, and creating more difficulties for spacecraft trying to navigate out of Earth’s atmosphere and into deep space. Secondly, higher orbits mean the objects take much longer to decay naturally than lower orbits, but the decay still will occur (see Fig. 4.1). Besides graveyard orbits and debris prevention measures, there are several other options for dealing with orbital debris, some of which have also been discussed previously (see Table 4.2). While Table 4.2 lists possible options for managing space junk, debris creation may be about to take a sinister course with plans for mega-­ constellations in both Earth and lunar orbits in the near future.

Mega-Constellations Historically, satellites were small, specialised one-off ventures that were often deployed for individual mission purposes. Launching satellites was originally costly, much of which had to do with their weight. Today, satellites are becoming increasingly small and light due partly to technological innovation and advancement, but also to the cheaper costs associated with small, light satellites, as opposed to large heavy ones. Small, light satellites have the ability to be launched and placed in orbit through piggy-backing onto other launch missions, saving costs associated with individual launching. The expense of satellite launching has thus led to the miniaturisation of their construction. In turn, because of reduced costs, small satellites have opened up orbital space to smaller, private

84 

J. Lampkin and R. White

Table 4.2  Options for dealing with orbital debris Solution Avoidance

Explanation

Avoiding placing objects into Earth orbit ensures orbital debris accumulation in the long-term is manageable Mitigation Mitigation guidelines create a minimum standard for guidelines managing space junk, ensuring consistency across different agencies and companies that create space waste Re-entry and While there is a carbon cost to intentionally using Earth’s burn up atmosphere to burn up small objects, this option does result in debris reduction Re-entry with Some objects are too large to burn up upon re-entry, but uncontrolled capability has been lost to instigate a controlled landing. landing This could be due to a lack of fuel, or lost communication ability. Landing could be anywhere on Earth Re-entry with Those objects that are too large to burn up upon re-entry, controlled but that still contain fuel and communications, can be landing strategically navigated towards point nemo Capture and Dedicated space salvage or removal firms could capture reuse (direct existing debris and bring it back to Earth for disposal. retrieval) However, sending a salvage spacecraft into orbit creates more debris because all launched spacecraft discard payloads and rocket bodies. Consequently, space salvage may be a double-edged sword Re-orbiting into When an orbiting object or satellite comes to the end of its storage orbits functioning life, it can be manoeuvred into a high storage orbit where it does not come into contact with active satellites or crewed space stations. This is a cheap solution that does not address the debris problem Collision Shielding critical functional infrastructure minimises the avoidance and impact of on-orbit collisions, but only offers a short-term shielding solution to debris creation that does not address future contributions to the debris environment Polluter pays Fining or imposing added costs to launching orbital objects may ensure all parties involved in debris creation take steps to ensure their waste is disposed of. However, it may be difficult to prove which debris objects originated where, particularly in the case of a collision event that creates many small fragments of debris Mutual insurance ‘There is certainly the case for a mutual insurance fund to funds meet damages claims caused by orbital debris to be contributed to by the space-active’ (Lyall & Larsen, 2018: 273). While insurance is unlikely to help combat existing debris, it could help to offset otherwise expensive retrieval measures

4  Space Junk 

85

firms. This means Earth orbit has been even more commercialised and is not just limited to national governments and large space corporations. Advancements in satellite technology, capability, and accessibility have also led to an increased interest in mega-constellations, also known as satellite clusters. These are closely grouped satellites in the same orbital slot that work together to improve satellite capability (Welti, 2012). While satellite constellations in low Earth orbit usually consist of small satellites, ‘communication satellites in geostationary orbital slots can now be as large as a multi-storey building, with solar panels expanding considerably beyond their main bodies’ (Lyall & Larsen, 2018: 237–238). Small satellites can vary in size (see Table 4.3). The size, shape, weight, and construction of a satellite depend on its mission purpose. Ultimately, then, there are satellites of all shapes and sizes in many different orbital ranges. Variances exist in the literature around the weight of different types of satellites, particularly small satellites. Arguments about the definition of different small satellite types are beyond the scope of this chapter. However, regardless of definitional disputes, these will all, eventually, Table 4.3  Satellite types, functions, and weights

Satellite type

Weight in grams (g) or kilograms (kg) Functions

Large Satellites >1000 kg

Medium Satellites

500–000 kg

Small satellites Mini-­satellites Micro-­satellites Nano-­satellites Pico-­satellites Femto-­ satellites Atto-­satellites Zepto-­satellites