Receive free aerospace industry updates
we will send you myFT Daily Digest Email summary of the latest information aerospace industry Every morning there is news.
In space, no one can hear your pleas for the value of soft power. Just ask Columbia. In 1976, the South American country hosted a conference that included Brazil, Ecuador, Uganda, Kenya, Indonesia and Congo. The participating countries declared that the geostationary orbit above them does not belong to outer space, but belongs exclusively to their respective countries.
The Bogotá Declaration was a complete failure. Although Colombia’s territorial claims are still enshrined in its constitution, the declaration never gained wider support and development of “their” real estate continued.
These countries share a common diagnosis: Space laws are created to benefit world powers, not all nations. They’re right, though it’s little consolation to them. A country’s ability to assert itself in space has been determined since 1967, when the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom first signed the Outer Space Treaty, which stipulates that any space exploration should be conducted “in the interest of all nations.” with its development. Inseparable from its ability to exercise hard power on Earth. A good example of this is the US unilaterally enacting laws on matters not mentioned or ambiguous in the 1967 treaty, such as commercial activities such as lunar and asteroid mining.
Last month’s Chandrayaan-3 landing on the moon was an important moment because it provided a romantic illustration of what we already know: India as a rising power in the 21st century. But the moment is significant for another reason: the country reportedly managed to reach the unexplored South Pole for just $74 million: more than Arsenal FC paid for German soccer player Kai Havertz. ) service and pay a slightly higher fee. In some ways, the low cost of this mission to the moon is unrepeatable for many other countries, and is driven in part by the expertise India has acquired during its 54-year space program.
But it’s also part of a broader decline in rocket costs driven by private companies like SpaceX. Some of India’s successes are displays of its hard power. But the remaining question is that, thanks in part to Indian innovation, even a fading world power like the UK might be able to take on its own mission to the moon, with much smaller fortunes than Elon Musk or Amazon founder Jeff The same may be true of private companies and individuals. Bezos’ interest in space colonization dates back to his farewell speech in high school.
The falling cost of rockets removes one of the barriers to building space settlements.An excellent new book, Kelly and Zach Weinersmith’s a city on mars, which lays out in a convincing and entertaining way why you have to be either extremely optimistic or extremely stupid to want to build a space settlement anytime soon. Unfortunately, many of us are one, or the other, or both.
The history of great power competition shows that countries will do a lot of extremely stupid things just to prevent themselves from missing the trick. There may be undiscovered lunar resources at the south pole of the moon: but it is also possible that the south pole of the moon is as illusory as the dream of El Dorado in the middle of Africa.
One of the consequences of the scramble for Africa was the displacement and murder of millions of Africans. Fortunately, there are no Moonmen or Martians for us to deprive. But another consequence of the scramble is that it sparks a direct clash between Europe’s established powers. The race for real or perceived superiority in space is already doing the same.
The shift in focus of India’s space program from domestic development to lunar missions and the ability to protect Indian space assets is a response to China’s testing of anti-satellite missions, while the U.S. re-embracing of lunar missions is more in response to China’s anti-satellite missions. The certainty that China is heading to the moon is slimmer than the chances of finding something worth discovering at the lunar south pole.
The falling cost of rockets means that, unlike during the Cold War, space exploration will not be a game mainly played by great powers. The 1967 treaty backing space sharing still assumes a world in which space activities are primarily the affair of the United States or two now-defunct empires, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Today, the space race is dominated by the United States and China.
“Nothing in the space environment so far seems to inspire the inner yearning for peace in man,” warns the Weiner-Smiths. As the world gears up for the race to Mars, space exploration desperately needs a new set of global rules.
Stephen. Bush@ft.com
Svlook
