The Democratization of Space

[Phi for All]

I read a great article about space policy I wanted to discuss. Here's the link to the article by Dave Baiocchi and William Welser IV: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/space/2015-04-20/democratization-space

In overview, space exploration has, in the past, been the domain of major states. As technology continues to find ways to make sending satellites and other vehicles more affordable, private companies are laying plans to increase the number of launches and vehicles dramatically. But right now, space policy is still largely non-existent, and certainly isn't geared up for the massive efforts private enterprise has in mind.

Given the revolution in accessibility, it’s possible to imagine other nonstate actors having a go at space as well. Nongovernmental organizations may start pursuing missions that undermine governments’ objectives. An activist billionaire wanting to promote transparency could deploy a constellation of satellites to monitor and then tweet the movements of troops worldwide. Criminal syndicates could use satellites to monitor the patterns of law enforcement in order elude capture, or a junta could use them to track rivals after a coup.

Right now, the Outer Space Treaty loosely governs states involved in space projects. It says that space should be free for exploration to any State. But with all these new players poised to multiply the number of satellites in orbit, many new questions arise that weren't planned for when the treaty was adopted in 1967. And there really isn't better policy available now, so it's clear that we need a more effective democratization of space before too many more Kickstarter projects leave the launch pad.

 

These advancements—in computing, manufacturing, and launching—have made space more accessible than ever before, and entrepreneurs are entering the fray. One characteristic newcomer is Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, a small company that employs just two dozen engineers and is headquartered in a modest office park in Irvine, California. Its mission: to build satellites so inexpensive and easy to use that practically anyone can buy and launch them. The company has developed a modular system—essentially, an Erector set for satellites—that allows it to configure a satellite for a particular client’s needs, and at a very low cost. While the average satellite in orbit costs around $100 million to build, Tyvak’s start at $45,000. Their clients range from well-funded high school science clubs to NASA.

 

As the article points out, how do you keep the players honest when the same cheap tech can map weather patterns AND spy on troop movements? Is it in our best interests to let wild entrepreneurial efforts fuel a pioneering movement that could result in countless benefits, or is space exploration something we need to control as much as we can, limiting who and what leaves the planet, and what's circling around above us? Who decides?

 

 

[dimreepr]

Is it necessary to keep the players honest?

 

RADAR, for instance, was developed and implemented through deception; the benefits of which are clear today.

[Phi for All]

Ordinarily, I'd say a whole bunch of smart folks trying to work out problems never faced before is a great recipe for progress, but this obviously affects everyone who sits underneath all that equipment up there. It's an enormous amount of space up there, but it becomes very small when you're trying to keep everything from crashing into each other.

 

There aren't a lot of policies that cover debris, which is one of our problems now. If your satellite knocks a non-essential piece off my satellite, but that piece goes on to impact with a third party's satellite, am I responsible or are you?

 

I'd hate to see red tape cripple these entrepreneurial efforts, but at least there are channels for sound policy through the countries with space programs. Knowing that private enterprise needs regulation here on Earth, doesn't it seem smart to increase that regulation for policies that encompass the whole world and beyond?

[Roamer]

Phi For All:

As the article points out, how can you keep the players honest when the same tech can map weather patterns AND spy on troop movement?

I don't see how this would make players dishonest.

Let's take the Ukrain-vs-Donetsk conflict, truces have been broken, fingers have been pointed, but satelite-images(and we know plenty exist) have only been released sparsingly and in low quality, making authenticitation hard to impossible.

With more parties in space, well, off course there'd be more liars as well, but they would be easier to dicredit.

[Unity+]

I think we should investigate how the outerspace treaty would work based on how countries react to international seas Treat by the United Nations. It could give some perspective.

[Phi for All]

Phi For All:

I don't see how this would make players dishonest.

Let's take the Ukrain-vs-Donetsk conflict, truces have been broken, fingers have been pointed, but satelite-images(and we know plenty exist) have only been released sparsingly and in low quality, making authenticitation hard to impossible.

With more parties in space, well, off course there'd be more liars as well, but they would be easier to dicredit.

 

The satellites are tools. They aren't good or evil, but they can be used for either purpose. Are we assuming that everyone with a weather satellite is also using it to track troop movements?

 

There are a lot of poor countries that are along the equator who don't think it's fair to park geostationary satellites above their countries for free. They claim the GSO is a natural resource rather than a region of space, and as such they should be allowed to claim the part over their airspace. Should they be compensated even though many don't have space programs?

 

What about calls for orbital solar arrays that could, in theory, send energy down to the surface? It's not hard to imagine the same system that's used to relay electricity to the grid could also be used as a weapon on anybody below. The possibilities for great benefits and great harm can be a bit paralyzing for many of the global players.

[fiveworlds]

What about calls for orbital solar arrays that could, in theory, send energy down to the surface?

 

Or a solar powered accelerator to allow spacecraft to attain really high speeds before we send them to mars etc. Realistically a lot of what limits our expansion in space is how long it would take us to get to other planets. The longer it takes the more supplies we need to take with us for a trip.

Edited June 12, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Roamer]

Yes, satelites are tools.

In most human societies, the available tools are available to everyone. This is not (just) because we like sharing, it is because it is good for the group.

Exclusive access to any resource, be it weapons, a consumer-market, legislative authority, gets abused by the few, and doesn't get any thrust for progression.

Classifying non-lethal tools as weapons is a bit of a stretch, but it would make having equal access for all even more important.

[Phi for All]

Or a solar powered accelerator to allow spacecraft to attain really high speeds before we send them to mars etc. Realistically a lot of what limits our expansion in space is how long it would take us to get to other planets. The longer it takes the more supplies we need to take with us for a trip.

 

Like the space-based solar array, anything that could slingshot spacecraft at interplanetary speeds could also be aimed at the planet, with a denser, more destructive payload.

 

Yes, satelites are tools. In most human societies, the available tools are available to everyone. This is not (just) because we like sharing, it is because it is good for the group. Exclusive access to any resource, be it weapons, a consumer-market, legislative authority, gets abused by the few, and doesn't get any thrust for progression. Classifying non-lethal tools as weapons is a bit of a stretch, but it would make having equal access for all even more important.

 

If a tool can be used destructively, it's going to be viewed as a weapon in some situations. TSA won't let me carry a screwdriver, or even a hammer, on an airplane. My box cutter isn't welcome in the courthouse. And similarly, the communications satellite that one can argue has only benign purposes, could be used very effectively against your country if someone else has access to it and you don't.

[fiveworlds]

Like the space-based solar array, anything that could slingshot spacecraft at interplanetary speeds could also be aimed at the planet, with a denser, more destructive payload.

 

And we could already destroy the planet with our nuclear weapons so who cares??

[Phi for All]

And we could already destroy the planet with our nuclear weapons so who cares??

 

The point is, nuclear weapons deployment has a single purpose. That's not the case with a satellite that's supposed to be giving weather data but also reports on troop movement and other military goals. My goal was to show that space policy is difficult to agree on due to the many different natures of the countries and technologies involved.

[fiveworlds]

My goal was to show that space policy is difficult to agree on due to the many different natures of the countries and technologies involved.

 

Sometime in Europe's history people became afraid to advance in technology and instead lost technology because we constantly argued amongst one another and didn't get anything done. We were scared of the implications of new technology and of the changes that could result eg. loss of power etc. But if we never advanced then we would never have had electricity or the internet and sure some of the things have been weapons and tanks etc. But logically these are things that are going to happen sooner or later and it is worse to be the country that hasn't developed technology than the one that has. If the axis powers had developed the nuclear bomb before the allies the balance of power now would be completely different. Hitler might have even finished his genocidal plans.

Edited June 12, 2015 by fiveworlds

[playground]

Well - never know that - but it is true, sometimes politics play a major role in technological decisions - sometimes for the good sometimes for the bad of it!