December Issue
By Alexandra Iliopoulou
April
Almost five years ago, United States President Donald Trump signed the National Defense Authorization Act enshrining the United States Space Force into law. The Space Force, an armed service focused on developing a competitive edge in space, will ensure national security from the “ultimate high ground,” according to Trump. Little did Trump know, this decision would condemn him to an onslaught of criticism: the show Space Force, a satire of the sixth branch of the United States armed forces, was released on Netflix a year later. Despite the mounting criticism, government agencies and corporations were paying close attention, legitimately considering “space as a warfighting domain.”
The term “space race” is one that has historically referred to the politically driven standoff that took place between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War. This battle for ideological influence ushered in the creation of satellite technology, human space travel, and multi-planetary exploration. However, in recent years, a new space race has emerged, dominated by non-state actors seeking to expand economic opportunity through resource extraction and attempts of extraterrestrial colonization. Extraterrestrial colonization refers to the settlement of celestial bodies and has been the subject of discussion for lunar expeditions and Elon Musk’s ambitions to render Mars inhabitable.
Tim Marshall, author of The Power of Geography: Ten Maps that Reveal the Future of our World, declares that future geopolitical disputes are no longer limited to terrestrial boundaries and resources. Already, a new wave of innovation has found a foothold in space: agendas including moon colonization, strategies for meteorite space mining, and security innovations like Lockheed Martin’s Space Fence are already in place. Naturally, the expanded presence of state actors and corporations in outer space has also raised the issue of space governance.
Everett Dolman, a political theorist and space strategist, conceived the idea of “astropolitik” to navigate space governance. In his book, Dolman describes astropolitik as the realist approach to space policy and conquest, where space becomes the center of the global hegemonic struggle. His conceptual framework divides space into zones, highlighting near-Earth space, or low Earth orbit, as the most critical domain to ensure national security. In recent years, near-Earth space has been the primary focus of space politics, as states have entertained ideas of extraterrestrial exploration but largely directed their commercial space efforts on a low Earth orbit economy (LEO economy). The LEO economy describes the commercial activity that is related to low Earth orbit, the space within 2,000 km of the Earth’s surface. The International Space Station is the primary spacecraft stationed in low Earth orbit, but the expansion of the LEO will include production and trade including a rising number of actors in the sectors of commercial space travel, telecommunications and satellite deployment.
While the weaponization of outer space for political dominance began in the first space race, numerous instances during and after the Cold War have emphasized space as a setting for power politics. The Reagan Administration introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983, dubbed the “Star Wars” program. Cold War tensions were still a prominent concern at this point, as the objective of the program was to combat the threat of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union in the waning years of the Cold War. While the SDI represents a case of space militarization, the International Space Station (ISS) has been a nexus of international collaboration for fifteen nations since its conception in the 1990s. Russia plays a significant role in the ISS, and its participation in the ISS signified improved relations between the United States and the Russian Federation at the end of the 20th century. Even today, international cooperation remains a relevant characteristic of outer space exploration, albeit in a more exclusive manner. Since 2020, a group of 36 nations, including the United States, the United Arab Emirates, and Japan, have signed the Artemis Accords, a set of nonbinding agreements governing lunar expeditions and resource extraction on the moon. Marshall likens the successful feat of moon colonization, the international effort to establish sovereign colonies on the moon, to the historical influence of maritime powers. This crucial aspect provides an explanation for why the Artemis Accords notably lack the participation of China and Russia. Instead, the two superpowers plan to build a joint research station on the moon in the coming years, offering an alternative approach to lunar exploration, further exacerbating the power struggle materializing in the race for moon resources.
Excluding state actors and space agencies, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are also actively shaping the environment of the new space race, characterized as the “ Billionaire Space Race.” Bezos entered the commercial space craze with the founding of his company Blue Origin in 2001, which is now contracting for the Pentagon alongside defense companies like Lockheed Martin. Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla and X, started SpaceX as a way to revolutionize the aerospace industry by reducing waste with reusable rockets. However, in its 22-year lifespan, Musk’s SpaceX has not only accomplished the unprecedented feat of recycling rocket components and launching Teslas into space; it has also been altering the landscape of internet connectivity through SpaceX’s satellite network, Starlink. The satellite system, which is present in over 40 countries, consists of 5,600 active satellites in low Earth orbit, accounting for more than 50% of the Earth’s active satellites. Taking Starlink’s expansive reach into account, Bezos’ Blue Origin seems to be playing a game of catch-up with Musk’s established network.
Starlink is a prime example of the increasing authority that non-state actors have amassed globally, where tech stakeholders have found themselves altering outcomes of armed conflict. Musk found himself at the center of a military escalation when he received a request from Ukrainian authorities to activate satellites in an offensive against Russian ships in Crimea. Since before the full-scale war in Ukraine began, antagonism in the celestial sphere has led to renewed tensions reminiscent of the Cold War. Sources suggest that Russia is developing a nuclear space weapon that would target satellites, signaling potentially catastrophic consequences for Starlink. While Biden assured the American public that this weapon does not present a current threat to their personal safety, Russia’s progress in developing a satellite-targeted space weapon remains largely unknown. Either way, such a weapon would remain a last resort for Russia, as it would pose a mutual danger to their own satellites among the foreign spacecraft.
Ultimately, the power distribution in global politics has undoubtedly been altered with the venture into astropolitics. Peaceful governance, while possible, will require a de-escalation of weapons development and a more consolidated space policy. Overall, the new space race will be characterized by the manner in which a multitude of actors confront the challenge of creating an all-inclusive legal framework for space governance while also balancing an increasingly multipolar political landscape in the coming decades.