Space Industry’s Many Potential Future Paths
A few readers of some of my analyses have encountered my desire to see more diversity in the space industry and more opportunities for others to participate. They’ve likely seen my views about the lack of imagination from those within the space industry. It seems to me that diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints helps keep the lack of imagination at bay.
Space-Age Challenges, Age-old Responses
The key to the space industry's success is broadening the people and nations participating in it–businesses are made of people. They help the space industry despite itself and its recycled visions stemming from Cold War ideas. Hopefully, the number of commercial companies will grow, so there will be more participation and opportunity in the space industry’s activities. The increase in the variety of industry participants will also help prevent it from developing tunnel vision (that whole lack of imagination thing) and become more accepting of viewpoints.
An article posted in late August 2024 observes space-industry tunnel vision in the context of a new space-age colonialism. The article's author does not mention tunnel vision specifically but worries about the seeming inevitability of a resurgence in how people exploit newly accessible natural resources–greedily and without regard for consequences, usually at the expense of others. Based on this paper, others appear to be worried about space colonialism as well. Their worries are justified based on world history. Recent space industry responses to other viewpoints amplify the need to worry.
Take the philosophical and religious viewpoints of those who see space as a sacred domain. Some believe their ancestors are waiting above the Earth to guide their spirits to the galaxy (a charming and exciting story). They might be concerned about the impact of satellites orbiting the Earth and plans to colonize other planets. Earlier this year, another group sent concerns to NASA about sending human remains to the Moon. The Navajo view the Moon as sacred.
NASA’s response to those concerns missed the point, probably intentionally:
"With these new opportunities and new ways of doing business, we recognize that some non-NASA commercial payloads can be a cause for concern to some communities. And those communities may not understand that these missions are commercial and they're not U.S. government missions, like the ones that we're talking about."
For one, the concern was not from a community (that description sounds small and informal) but a nation–the Navajo (which has a history far older than NASA). So, the one federal authority involved in the mission who could help refused. Perhaps it’s because the Navajo Nation never signed the Artemis Accords? Also, what’s the hurry? NASA has never met a deadline it couldn’t push.
(S)ome — are more equal than others
The company offering the service of getting human remains to the Moon, Celestis, did its best to imitate 1880s railroad barons' exhortations of national progress to justify defrauding lands from various Indian nations to build railroads:
"No one, and no religion, owns the moon, and, were the beliefs of the world's multitude of religions considered, it’s quite likely that no missions would ever be approved," Chafer added. "Simply, we do not and never have let religious beliefs dictate humanity’s space efforts — there is not and should not be a religious test."
Progress! At any cost. And yet, Celestis advertises how its service is part of a “cultural imperative,” which sounds remarkably two-faced considering its response to the Navajo. At a guess, neither NASA nor Celestis likely attempted any more earnest communication with concerned parties because society must progress at someone else's expense.
But I have a few questions.
How is it “humanity’s space efforts” if not everyone in humanity agrees? Did Celestis receive China’s, Japan’s, India’s, or Russia’s agreement for placing human remains on the Moon? Is it better that commercial companies dictate humanity’s space efforts instead of governments? And isn’t placing human remains on the Moon tacitly placing one set of religious beliefs over another? Maybe it’s more accurate to frame the mission as NASA’s and Celestis’ space efforts. Perhaps other nations, such as Russia, might disagree with the exclusion of religion.
“Quirky” Culture?
For example, a 2014 Quartz article describes the “quirky” rituals surrounding Russian rocket launches. The article starts with an image of a priest blessing a rocket launch and ends with a photo of returning astronauts and cosmonauts dressed in traditional Kazakh garb. Maybe these rituals are quirky to some of us, but they are important enough to people in the region and Roscosmos that Russia encourages them.
Based on this more recent Moscow Times pictorial, the priests appear to bless everything–even cats. To be very clear, I’m not praising the Russian government. It’s just that there seems to be an acceptance, maybe even an encouragement, of the Russian Orthodox blessing.
What makes the Russian Orthodox priest blessing the mission different from some Native Americans' views on the Moon’s sanctity? Is the value judgment of the latter belief less because it gets in the way of potentially enriching exploitation? Do people downplay it because attempting to honor it complicates space exploration?
Based on the latest marketing for the Western side of the industry, the choice appears to be NASA’s way of exploring space, the U.S. military’s national space security mission, or the pronouncements of entrepreneurs with similar visions, usually pursuing government contracts. One option is driven by the politics of whatever administration is in power, another about whatever threat appears against the U.S. (China, currently), and the last by people with no reasonable accountability but willing to make a buck off the other two.
Humanity Isn’t NASA, the DoD, or New Space
Given how many people live on this planet, some might view those options as unacceptable. To be clear, this isn’t about China’s or Russia’s attempts to impose their colonial space agendas. It’s about increasing the viewpoints…expanding the diversity of ways to explore, possibly settle, the universe around us.
A single U.S. agency said “no” to a nation’s concerns. It didn’t even bother to put much thought into addressing them seriously, probably due to a vision that focused only on technical progress and politics, not an expansive vision that included humanity in its entirety. NASA didn’t even have to “learn” this about the Navajo because at least one part of NASA understands the specialness of the Moon to the Navajo Nation. It shouldn’t have been surprised because of its partner program with the Navajo. The agency even has educator pages for the “Navajo Moon.”
Space is a business, but that’s not an excuse to ignore other viewpoints.
The current industries and agencies involved are far too small for anyone to believe they represent “humanity’s” best ways to explore space. At best, the current slate of agencies and companies represents humanity’s first ways to explore space. As we know, the first iteration is usually not the best. Far too few are making decisions for the rest of humanity–without its consent. Those decisions benefit a minority of humankind while possibly negatively impacting a magnitude more. To paraphrase a line from one of Chief Seattle’s letters:
When the helium-3 has been mined, the rogue asteroids corralled, the solar system’s secret corners are heavy with the scent of humanity, and the view of bright stars is blotted with metal boxes, where is space?
Admittedly, I don’t have Chief Seattle’s style and earnestness. His original quote describes his concerns about the consequences of the changes going on in his environment. Similarly, choices about these aspects of space (and others), in the form of the next big space business idea, are constantly batted about in the industry, with little input from impacted communities (and nations) and an apparent refusal to consider and accept other viewpoints. Do all those characteristics lend themselves to tunnel vision, which could lead to a new colonialism?
These parties have no discussions about the possible consequences of continuing down this road (some keep trying to ignore the space debris challenges). Their current tunnel vision, whether as “entrepreneurial vision” or “exploration,” and lack of open (and good faith) discussions excludes the other viewpoints that may introduce imaginative ways of exploring the galaxy while exploiting it less.
Just ask astronomers.
If you liked this analysis (or any others from Ill-Defined Space), I appreciate any donations (I like taking my family out every now and then). For the subscribers who have donated—THANK YOU from me and my family!!
Either or neither, please feel free to share this post!
Comments ()