SPACE FOR US ALL?

he possibility of settling on other planets is an idea familiar to humankind. It has been the subject of many works of fiction, on print and screen. But that expansion of human society out into the cosmos would prove just (and only) that. Humanity writ large across our solar system, with all of our vices and virtues still very much in play.

It would, barring some scientific miracle, be just our solar system. The distance from earth to even our closest star is vast beyond the human mind’s ability to quantify - travelling at the speed of light, it would take us 4 years to reach Proxima Centauri. Without light-speed travel, it took the Voyager 1 probe almost 35 years merely to escape our solar system. Human interstellar travel is not a viable prospect, considering the complexity of the vital equipment required to support human life, which requires maintenance, and the need to have sufficient propulsion and working equipment to make orbit and land on the target planet.

So, our solar system it is. Not that the story is much better in our immediate neighbourhood. Colonies on Mars and the moons of Jupiter would be desperate for resources. Water is difficult to manufacture, and there is finite amount trapped in our solar system, whether on icy asteroids or Earth’s ocean. Electricity, vital for life on other planets, is somewhat easier to generate, but requires specific materials to generate it, whether from a fuelpowered generator or silicate-based solar panels. Attempts to colonise the solar system could well degenerate into vicious conflicts over the materials necessary for life.

Perhaps we might discover a planetary identity, one that allows us to ‘pull together’ in the face of these tensions.

Well. That would certainly be something. For a start, Earth itself, with its billions of people and centuries of what we might gently refer to as ‘baggage’, is perhaps the worst contender for a unified community going. If anyone has any alternative suggestions, I’m all ears.

Furthermore, the scenario of Earth having a singular identity associated with its population would also, presumably, involve other planets and colonies developing their own identities and communities. For a long-form demonstration of why this would Not End Well, please watch the TV show The Expanse (seasons 1 through 5). If you haven’t seen it (which you should), or you can’t be bothered, allow me to paraphrase. Political identities breed tribalism, tribalism breeds war. War, even with present technologies, would be devastating, and pose a threat to human life as we know it. Nor would this risk dissipate with a divided Earth, as varying factions vie for dominance in space, continuing their struggles earthside by other means.

There’s no telling what kind of societies colonisation would create. Living on other planets would require artificially maintained life support, which would need to be maintained at all times. How does a society function when someone has control of the air it breathes and the water it drinks? Such a society could easily turn autocratic, with the ultimate sanction for resistance only a few inches away, on the other side of the hab-dome wall.

A strong potential for autocratic rule, intense competition for resources, and the competition of nationalisms on a grand scale. Hardly a prepossessing combination. As a humble suggestion, we might want to focus on dealing with problems here at home on Earth, before we start spreading them all over our neighbourhood.

WORDS BY SAMUEL PEARSON IMAGE BY JASPER MARSHALL

Can Countries Colonise Space and Call It Their Own 'Land'?

he short answer is no. Countries are prohibited from claiming sovereignty over any celestial body by Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. However, humankind has a long tradition of ignoring silly little things like sovereignty and laws.

Whilst the Outer Space Treaty prevents countries from claiming sovereignty over any part of outer space, it says nothing about individuals and private companies claiming land for themselves and for profit. Colonisation by the private sector is not unheard of, with the East India Company ruling over large areas of India for a century until being ceded to the British Government in 1858.

This ‘loophole’ around private ownership was intended to be closed by the 1979 Moon Treaty, which also would have prevented the exploitation of natural resources. The treaty today is meaningless, only ever applying to the moon and being ratified by only five countries. It also failed to include the US, China, or Russia. The lack of ratification by the US is significant as this is where many of the influential private space exploration companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are based. Both companies have expressed interest in staying on the moon, Blue Origin with the ambition of shifting heavy industry to the moon, and what Elon Musk dubbed ‘Moon Base Alpha.’ With supposedly nothing prohibiting private ownership of the moon, there are numerous online vendors selling plots of land on the moon, although as Virgin Experience Days clarifies in bold, they ‘make no guarantees about the legal ownership of the moon.’

More recent treaties on space such as the 2020 Artemis Accords continue to attempt to ensure and clarify the access of private companies to outer space. Being focused on the Moon, Mars, comets, and asteroids, it allows for the extraction and recovery of their resources, along with an agreement that their exploitation does not violate Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty too suffers from a lack of adoption with only twelve member states, not including Russia or China. It does however point us towards what is becoming the other goal of space exploration, which is natural resources. For example, NASA awarded SpaceX a contract to visit the asteroid 16 Psyche in 2022, an object valued at $10,000 quadrillion. The world economy is valued at only $80.27 trillion.

Whether it be the land on which our moon base sits or the asteroid we wish to mine for near-infinite resources, more robust rules about sovereignty and ownership are needed if there are going to be competing national and corporate interests. The safety zones of the Artemis Accords which are intended to exist around installations and operations have been criticised by Russia as a means of making de facto territorial claims to the moon. This should be seen as a step in the right direction as rules provide a means to manage these competing interests, and should be preferable to anarchy. We have rules governing behaviour and claims of sovereignty to uninhabited spaces on earth like Antarctica and the sea, so why not in space too?

WORDS BY CIARAN BREEN IMAGE BY JASPER MARSHALL