Pourquoi l'espace est important et comment le gérer

BRIAN MATEO: Hello, everyone. My name is Brian Mateo, and I serve as director of education and special projects at Carnegie Council. To begin, I would like to welcome you all to our fifth event in the Council’s Ethics Empowered: Leadership in Practice series, which convenes scholars and practitioners to discuss pressing moral issues, reflect on their careers, and offer insights to young leaders. In today’s panel we will be exploring the topic of space in relation to ethical questions of governance, militarization, and emerging technology.

It is my pleasure to now introduce our moderator for this event, Mai’a Cross, dean’s professor of political science, international affairs, and diplomacy, and director of the Center for International Affairs and World Cultures at Northeastern University. I am also honored to welcome our panelists, Marianne Riddervold, research professor at ARENA Centre for European Studies, alongside Anncy Thresher, assistant professor of philosophy and religion and public policy and urban affairs at Northeastern University, and Colonel Corey L. Trusty of the U.S. Space Force and military fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

As I join you from the Council’s Global Ethics Hub in New York City, I want to welcome you again and will now pass the program over to Mai’a.

MAI’A CROSS: Good morning, everyone, and welcome. I am delighted to be moderating today’s conversation for Carnegie Council on "Why Space Matters and How to Govern It." I think these questions touch on one of the most consequential policy arenas of our time, but let me start with something that I think often gets lost in the policy weeds.

Space has long inspired us as humans. There is something about looking up at the moon, stars, and a rocket soaring through the sky that cuts across cultures, languages, and political systems. Remarkably, this sense of shared wonder has translated into something real. Even at the height of the Cold War, when the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in an intense rivalry, they still found ways to cooperate in space, and this practice has held over time.

If we look at the example of the International Space Station (ISS), it has been continuously inhabited for over two decades with astronauts and cosmonauts living side by side working on science and exploration, and they have done this despite wars, sanctions, and diplomatic crises on the ground below. Space in a unique way has shown a remarkable capacity to remain somewhat insulated from the worst of our earthly conflicts, and in some ways this may be one of the most underappreciated achievements in the history of international relations.

Space today is also increasingly the infrastructure of daily life. We rely every day on the Global Positioning System (GPS) to get from one place to another, for weather forecasts, and even for the financial transactions that are happening right now across global markets. All of this depends on satellites orbiting overhead. If you think about it, space is woven into the fabric of modern civilization in ways that most of us never notice, but what it really means is that what happens up there in orbit or farther away is deeply consequential for all of us down here.

The landscape is changing very rapidly. Over 90 countries now have some form of national space program, and the commercial sector has become a major force as well. It is not just SpaceX that everyone is aware of but a growing constellation of literally thousands of startups spread across the world.

The space economy is growing rapidly as well. In 2024 it hit $613 billion U.S. dollars and is projected to cross the threshold of $1 trillion by the early 2030s.

There are so many players and questions about how to govern space: Who makes the rules, who enforces them, and who gets left out? All of this is incredibly urgent.

This brings us to much harder questions. Space has long been militarized. Militaries rely on satellites for communication, navigation, and surveillance. It has not yet been weaponized, though. No nation has placed actual weapons in orbit designed specifically to target Earth or another space-based asset. I think this distinction matters enormously because if we cross this line it shatters a kind of taboo that has held for over six decades.

Today we are going to hear about the risks but also the diplomatic tools available and frameworks that exist to keep that line from being crossed to a vision of space as the next battlefield. We will also turn to some of the ethical dimensions that are often overlooked: Who benefits from space? Whose interests get centered? What do we owe to future generations and to life on Earth right now? As we make decisions about resource extraction in space, biotech, and the growing problem of orbital debris, these are key questions.

I am delighted to have our panelists dive straight into answering some of the questions raised by these major dilemmas. They are truly outstanding panelists who bring perspectives from international relations, security, and ethics.

I will present a kickoff question, addressed to all three of them, a very big question: Why should space matter to the general public? We will start with Marianne Riddervold, who will give us a perspective from international relations.

MARIANNE RIDDERVOLD: Thank you, Mai’a, and good afternoon from Oslo to everyone. Thank you very much for having me today for this very topical and important discussion.

You already mentioned some of the reasons it is important to the general public, Mai’a. As you said, space has become quite critical for infrastructure on Earth. You mentioned climate, weather forecasting, navigation, trade, and finance. Everything we do literally depends on functioning space capabilities in Low Earth Orbit and also in Medium Earth Orbit.

From a security and defense perspective, these same space capacities are also key. I would say that no other domain, whether sea, earth, or regular conventional forces can do without functioning space capabilities.

As you also mentioned, it has been key to scientific developments on Earth of course. It is a global commons, so it belongs to all of us. What happens there is up to all of us to decide, so to speak.

The problem, and I am sure we will discuss this more, is that there are relatively few regulations in space. It had not been a big problem previously because space was not that accessible, but technological developments have driven the use of space capabilities on Earth and also the reason why we see so many different actors now—technological companies, different states, etc.—using space for different types of earthly needs and also starting to compete in space exploration. Many different states are going to the moon, for example, or discussing how to set international regulations on other planets.

The problem now is that we see this huge increase in satellites. We had 900 to 1000 satellites in 2010, and now there are about 10,000 to 11,000, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) expects the numbers to increase to 100,000 by 2030.

There is not enough room for all of these satellites, so it is becoming more contested, congested, and also more conflictual as great-power conflict also increasingly plays into space, especially with space exploration. From the United States’ perspective it is not necessarily about dominating space, but it is very important to the United States that China does not get stronger or more influential in space.

We have all of these different things playing out. Space is becoming very congested and more conflictual, while at the same time we have few regulations, which is why it is so important that we find ways of regulating and organizing this domain together.

All of these things matter. It is a critical infrastructure, it is a global commons, and what happens out there geopolitically is also super-important to all of us.

MAI’A CROSS: Thank you, Marianne, for explaining the international landscape.

Anncy, let me move to you and ask the same question from an ethical perspective: Why should space matter to the general public?

ANN THRESHER: To add to what you and Marianne said, we are all using space increasingly. Everyone on this call probably has used space in the last 24 hours, not just for navigating to wherever you are heading in your car but for banking, which is a big one people do not realize is core to our projects associated with space. Almost every time you use an automatic teller machine or pay for something with your bank card, you are using space infrastructure. It is increasingly important for communications. Our access to phone calls and to the internet are increasingly routed via space.

That means that we all have a serious and vested interest in space right now. In terms of making sure that we have equal access it becomes a justice issue. Access to things like money and communication are core to all our goals and projects here on earth. That means we need to be thinking more about what we are going to do in space, how we are going to govern it, how we are going to exist in it, and how we are going to expand into it.

One thing I think about a lot is the fact that the way we start in space is likely to be the way we go on. Is it going to be a Wild West model where it is private industry and every man for himself, or are we going to treat it as a place of global goods where we work together to try to build space up as a cooperative area for all of us. The choices we make now are going to set us on certain paths.

We need to think carefully about who is going to benefit from space, whether that is going to be government actors, private industry, or science, and, as Marianne pointed out, there are limited resources and limited space in space. We often think of space as very big, but Low Earth Orbit is becoming increasingly crowded, and we have to start making choices about how those regions are being used and what we prioritize:

Is it a place of science? It is a critical resource for climate monitoring, for example.

Is it a place for industry? If so, how should those industries influence other things on Earth? We are already seeing groups like SpaceX having outsized influence on wars here on Earth.

Or is space a place for the military? We are seeing more and more groups agitating for space as a domain of war, and we need to think carefully now about what those choices are.

It is also the case that there are longer-term questions. Space exacerbates a lot of the problems we see here on Earth. If we are worried about ethical issues with employment, for example, or access to basic resources, those become much harder to deal with somewhere like the Moon or when you are in orbit, where you are entirely at the mercy of other groups for the air you breathe or the food you eat.

It is important to think carefully and practically about exactly the things we are talking about here like legal structures and protections for certain groups but also who we want to be as a species as we move off Earth. Space is our future. We are thinking now about what we want to bring off Earth that is positive and what we want to leave behind here as we move toward a future off-planet.

MAI’A CROSS: Corey, how about the security perspective?

COREY TRUSTY: Thank you. I am so glad to be here, especially with all the esteemed panelists.

Everybody has made some great points. When most people in the United States hear “space,” they think about astronauts and rockets, and indeed they do think about exploration, but from a national security perspective space is not a distant frontier. It is a critical infrastructure. It underpins the way our society functions every single day.

You guys are right. When you look at GPS or weather and communications satellites, if those systems were disrupted, the effects would not be abstract or distant. That would ripple through our economy and our daily lives almost immediately. So, from a military standpoint, space is even more foundational.

Modern warfare depends on space-enabled capabilities, missile warnings, secure communications, intelligence, surveillance, and that positional navigation as we alluded to earlier. If an adversary can blind or disrupt those systems, then they can degrade our ability to deter conflict and defend our allies. That is without even striking the homeland directly. That means space is no longer just a supporting domain. It is a frontline domain of strategic competition.

Importantly, space is no longer a sanctuary. Other nations have developed anti-satellite weapons, electronic warfare capabilities, and cyber tools designed to target space systems. Like you said before, because the domain is congested, competitive, and contested, actors in space can create long-lasting debris that threatens civilian and commercial satellites alike. Any type of irresponsible act in orbit can affect everyone on Earth for decades.

At the same time, we are in the middle of a commercial space revolution. Our economy is increasingly tied to private-sector space capabilities. That creates resilience and innovation, but it also raises new questions about protection, escalation, and governance. Why should the general public care? Because space is the invisible backbone of our modern life.

When I first got into the space career field over 20 years ago I never thought that it would underpin everything that we do. Because it enables our security, economy, and safety in ways that most people never see, if we fail to protect it, deter conflict in it, and establish responsible norms for behavior, then we risk undermining this system that keeps our society functioning, so space matters, not just because of what is up there but because of everything down here that depends on it.

MAI’A CROSS: That is fantastic. Thank you, Corey, for explaining that. It shows how high the stakes are both for today and also as Anncy mentioned for our future as human beings and as we expand further into space.

On that note, I think it is worth zooming in a bit on space governance and what is in place right now. What are the current treaties or frameworks in place to govern outer space, and how should space diplomacy evolve based on current challenges with the rise of other actors, nonstate and commercial?

Related to that, what do you think of the Artemis Accords? Can you explain what those are in terms of current efforts to govern and update space frameworks?

MARIANNE RIDDERVOLD: There are some treaties and some longstanding norms and regulations in the space domain, most importantly the Outer Space Treaty. There is also the 1979 Moon Treaty, sometimes referred to as the Moon Convention. There are some regulations and regimes on frequencies, for example, and of course there is a lot of soft law and national regulation, but there are very clear limits to this, I would say. To a very large extent, space is a first-come, first-served domain, so everyone can, for example, launch satellites or go to the moon or other planets, which is also why we see this enormous increase in satellite launches both by public and private actors.

You could say, compared to all other areas in the world, that space is actually the closest we get to anarchy in a way because there are relatively few regulations compared to all other areas on Earth. As Anncy and Corey mentioned, this raises important ethical questions regarding how we can develop space as a just and sustainable commons.

There is no other way than finding global regimes developing common regulations, and there is an urgent need for this precisely because of this first-come, first-served principle. There is literally no other way either because you cannot divide space territorially, so the only way is to govern it, which will also be in everyone’s self-interest because if Low Earth Orbit becomes too crowded, the satellites will at some point be useless in a worst-case scenario.

Of course, this has proven difficult because there are many strong economic interests and geopolitical conflicts playing out. We all know we live in a difficult world when it comes to global cooperation, but there are some actors who are starting to build on what is already there and trying to build cooperation.

In some UN institutions there is actually cooperation, for example, on frequencies and megaconstellations, etc., even if one would not expect that given the anarchical structures of space. As you also mentioned, Mai’a, there was cooperation in space through the Cold War as well, but so much more is needed now because there are so many more actors there.

The Artemis Accords is a set of non-binding principles that was launched by NASA in coordination with the United States I think in 2020. The idea is to build on the Outer Space Treaty and the Moon Treaty to develop some common norms for how to deal with outer space. It has been signed by more than 60 states. Most European states have signed, amongst others.

There are different views on this, but I think even if it is not fully global it is built on the Outer Space Treaty, so it is built on some of the core norms that we already have. We know from other areas, like regulation of the high seas or the artificial intelligence space, that one important step toward more regulation could be by groups of states or “clubs” as we sometimes call them in international relations, suggesting some norms developing and trying to push these forward also within the international arena.

I think it is a good thing that we develop some common norms that states cooperate with. Then the challenge is to make this applicable beyond these states and develop binding rules and regulations around them. Another example, and I will not go into details, is that the European Union is also trying to use its so-called “Brussels effect” to regulate some aspects of Low Earth Orbit, for example, space debris, through its Space Act that came out recently.

MAI’A CROSS: Corey, what is your perspective on the Artemis Accords and how U.S. interests are reflected in that effort? Does the U.S. Space Force seek to prevent conflict in space with initiatives like the Artemis Accords?

COREY TRUSTY: The Artemis Accords represent something strategically significant. They are an effort to try to shape the rules of the road before competition hardens into conflict. At their core, the Artemis Accords are about transparency, interoperability, peaceful use, and responsible behavior in space exploration.

They reinforce principles embedded in the Outer Space Treaty, like Marianne was talking about before. There is data appropriation, there are peaceful purposes, there is due regard for others, but they also address some of the modern realities like resource utilization, de-confliction of activities, and the sharing of scientific data, which are all very critical and important.

That is not accidental. It reflects a distinctly U.S. approach to international order—open systems, rule-based frameworks, coalition building, and commercial participation—so U.S. interests are clearly reflected in their design.

First, we benefit from stability and predictability; the United States and our private sector are deeply invested in space, so having clear norms reduces miscalculation and protects our long-term access.

Second, the Accords reinforce alliances. Instead of pursuing unilateral dominance, the United States is building a coalition of like-minded nations committed to responsible behavior. That strengthens the legitimacy and shapes the expectations about what normal conduct in space looks like.

Third, they support commercial innovation. That framework acknowledges that private actors will play a major role in lunar and deep space activities, and it creates guardrails that enable investment while reducing friction.

From a strategic standpoint, governance is not separate from security, it is part of security. If you don’t help shape the norms early, then you inherent someone else’s.

As for Space Force, yes, we absolutely seek to prevent conflict in space. Our mission is not to militarize space for its own sake, but the mission is to secure U.S. and allied interests in, from, and to space, and the best way to do that is through deterrence and resilience. Deterrence is about convincing our potential adversaries that aggression will not achieve their objectives and will carry unacceptable costs. Resilience is about ensuring that even if systems are challenged they can withstand disruption and continue to function.

Conflict in space would be enormously destabilizing. It would create debris, affect our civilian infrastructure, and potentially spill over into other domains. The goal is not conflict, it is stability. Space Force exists in part because space is already contested, and ignoring that does not preserve peace; it invites risk.

Then we talk about why space matters and how to govern it. These issues are tightly connected, so norm-building efforts like the Artemis Accords help establish responsible behavior and strengthen the coalitions I was talking about earlier. A credible Space Force underpins deterrence and protects critical infrastructure, so governance and security are not opposing ideas but mutually reinforcing pillars of long-term stability in space.

I have to address the elephant in the room. Russia’s and China’s nonparticipation in the Artemis Accords is not merely a diplomatic choice. It is structural. It signals the emergence of competing space-governance regimes, alliance blocs, and industrial ecosystems, none of which I think are good for the management of space.

The core strategic question is whether these parallel architectures remain interoperable and peaceful or if they harden into adversarial spheres of influence extending to the moon and maybe even beyond. Their absence reflects a broader bifurcation in the international space order, which has significant implications for the governance of norms of space, or alliance, alignment, whether it is technology controls, and even long-term access to systems or resources.

MAI’A CROSS: Thank you for that comprehensive overview of how Space Force and militaries might approach the future and potential for conflict in space. I think it is great news that militaries, including Space Force, do recognize that conflict in space is undesirable and that it actually breeds a whole bunch of instability. There is still this debate, though, as to whether space is the next battlefield or whether we are entering into an era of the flourishing of a new space age, Space Age 2.0.

In order to address that question, we have to come back to the difference between the militarization—which, as I said and you reiterated, Corey, has long existed; we are reliant on space for all sorts of activities on earth, including the military—and weaponization of space.

Marianne, I am hoping you can shed some light on that difference. How do you see the distinction between militarization and weaponization of space, and how do we prevent the explicit weaponization of space and maybe even mitigate the ongoing militarization of orbiting satellites?

MARIANNE RIDDERVOLD: It is a very important question, and it is difficult to answer how to avoid that in today’s difficult geopolitical environment. Corey already discussed that that is what we have to try to avoid.

The way I understand the difference is that the militarization of space more or less just means the military use of space capabilities, services, and data. In this sense space is almost by definition militarized because most space capabilities are dual-use, which means that they can be used for civilian and military purposes.

The same types of navigation systems are used by shipping fleets and defense forces, for example. We use surveillance data to monitor weather, climate, and the same kind of data is used for surveillance purposes linked to military conflict. We see that very clearly now in Ukraine with the use of the Starlink system by both parties in the war.

The way I understand weaponization of space is that it means you actually deploy weapons in space, deploy weapons in space that you use on earth, or you have weapons that you can use against other space objects. There is some disagreement, for example, with using space capacities for jamming, spoofing, and cyberattacks, and whether those are weaponization or militarization.

We want to avoid weaponization because it is not legal according to international space law, but it is also very dangerous in itself because weapons are dangerous, but it is also dangerous in the sense that it will create security dilemma situations where you have one actor weaponizing space and other actors responding to that, and you will very soon see it spiraling out in space.

It could also have damaging impacts on the terror balance or nuclear balance on earth. The realist argument would be that the reason why there has not been nuclear war is because we have mutual deterrence capacities. If you have weapons in space that can interrupt this, that is also very dangerous on Earth because it would render response strikes impossible in a sense. That is something everyone is aware of now, also with developments in U.S. programs, for example, and we are not sure whether Russia already has weaponized space. That is a big discussion.

How can we avoid this? Of course, international cooperation and regulations are in everyone’s interest because we don’t want to get into this situation, but it is also important how we talk about this. Like you say, Mai’a we should discuss the difference because if we act as if other states have weaponized space we will also more easily do it ourselves than create these security debts. Establishing arenas for these questions and exchanging scientific expert knowledge on what is going on are important, but most important of course is international cooperation to avoid this. There is no easy solution.

MAI’A CROSS: Definitely a challenge and something that space diplomacy could help address, but, yes, I definitely agree with your point about the danger of self-fulfilling prophecies if we talk about space as already a battlefield and already weaponized, in which case you give away the high ground of trying to preserve it as a peaceful domain for all of humankind.

MARIANNE RIDDERVOLD: And space diplomacy has worked before.

MAI’A CROSS: It has.

MARIANNE RIDDERVOLD: It is possible.

MAI’A CROSS: That segues very nicely to bringing Anncy back in on how we should center space ethics around Earth-related issues to prioritize life on Earth rather than prioritizing things like the weaponization of space or even as some would talk about colonizing Mars.

Anncy, what would you add in terms of the ethical framing of this?

ANN THRESHER: I think all that Marianne brought up is very important. On top of that, when we talk about self-fulfilling prophecies, if we talk about space as a domain of war and weapons and not just militarization, I think it also changes how we use and think about space. Do we need to fire weapons or have a space war for people to be reluctant to invest in infrastructure in space when they think of it as a place of potential conflict?

I like to think of it like this: The kinds of shops you get when you are building a mall in an active military zone are very different than the kinds you get somewhere like downtown Boston. Just talking about space as a domain of war and a place where we are actively thinking of putting weapons changes the kinds of projects and benefits we are going to get out of it. It is going to change the way industry thinks about space.

We need to be careful about the way that language is rolled out and how much we are advocating for these kinds of things if we want to make sure we are getting the full benefits out of space for those of us who are not involved in large military conflicts.

On top of that I will add that it is also often hard to tell the line between militarization and weaponization. Marianne brought up things like spoofing, which I think is a good example of where it is unclear whether something is military or weapon in space.

We have a lot of satellites in orbit as has come up already. When last I looked we had about 8,000 to 9,000 objects in space orbiting us. As Marianne said earlier, we are looking at about 100,000 by 2030. A significant portion of those are just the ones being reported by groups like SpaceX. We are not including a lot of the ones by China or Russia or emerging economies and groups that are starting in space for the first time or will start to get into space over the next decade. We are going to see an exponential rise in objects in space, which is great. Again, infrastructure and industry are showing benefits from these sorts of things.

We also need to be able to get these satellites down again. I think the Japanese have got satellites with nets that try to capture satellites to pull them out again after they stop working and Europe is investigating different ways of removing and decommissioning satellites. Again, this is important because you need to be able to take these things down afterward because there is not that much actual Low Earth Orbit space, so you need to make sure you have access to as much as possible, but that crosses into weaponization. The kinds of things that will let you take out an old satellite are also the kinds of things that will you let take out an enemy satellite, so it is unclear when we are going to cross that line. It is a blurry thing to think about.

We need to be proactive about the governance issues and what we mean by them in order to make sure that we are not almost accidentally or with the excuse of maintaining space for everyone slipping through a lot of weapons. I think it is important to think proactively about these problems.

You asked how we center space ethics. We have got to think proactively now about what hard lines we are setting and what cooperations. Corey brought up the fact that we are seeing the solidification of certain political treaties and political groupings. Those are going to have long-term implications, not just for how space looks but for back here on Earth. Which industries get to benefit off of space? Where do those benefits go? Who benefits from them?

Space takes a lot of money, energy, and time, and that is going to naturally limit the kinds of people who can access the resources of space and profit off of it. We might see even more so than in the last few decades an exacerbation of certain groups making huge amounts of money and becoming immensely powerful.

If we don’t want these monopolies emerging, if we don’t want those groups to have control over the very real and tangible projects that everyday people have on Earth, we need to think very carefully about how we are going to regulate and monitor these things, even beyond weapons. We need to think about what it looks like to do business somewhere like space.

Space is exciting. Space is amazing. It is a very cool and interesting domain. We get worked up about things like colonizing Mars and settling on the Moon, and we should. It is an incredible opportunity for us as a species.

The fact that we live at a time when we are seriously contemplating what it looks like to become an interplanetary species is amazing, but we have to be thoughtful about the way we are going to do that and how it is going to impact those of us who remain here and live on Earth, and what the impacts are going to be on our society.

I am hoping later on we can talk a little about the environmental impacts of space. There are serious environmental impacts to the new space age, and we cannot think about sacrificing Earth for space, even if it is a very exciting and wonderful thing.

MAI’A CROSS: I want to make sure we have time for questions as well, but, Anncy, maybe I can ask you to elaborate a bit more on that future of space and ethical frameworks as commercial space becomes increasingly involved and in particular biotech in space. What do you think is a priority as space exploration evolves to include longer voyages and humans potentially living in space?

We are thinking about access to resources and the use of biotech. It seems to open up a whole big can of worms when it comes to ethics. Could you explain a little from your perspective what is important to think about regarding space and biotech in particular?

ANN THRESHER: I am glad you brought up biotech. It is one of these areas that is massively underthought about when it comes to space. Everyone thinks about infrastructure, rockets, pollution from rocket fuel, and what is needed to build space bases. People are thinking very carefully about architecture on the moon, et cetera, but very few people are thinking about the biotech aspects of space.

That in many ways is a bit of a problem for the United States. China is thinking very carefully about biotech in space, and I think they are ahead of us when it comes to these kinds of technologies, because it is going to be critical. The range varies: Where are you getting your life support systems from? How are we building and genetically modifying crops to grow somewhere like a space base, the Moon, or Mars? What does it mean for us to think about quarantine between here on Earth and space?

The ISS is very moist and full of a lot of fungus. It is not necessarily a pleasant place to be hanging around, but it also means that there are these separate evolutions happening for these biosystems, so quarantine is going to be important between here and space.

In the longer term, you get issues like: “Well, space is dangerous,” and I mean that not in the sense that you might crushed by rocks while mining on Mars, but there is a lot of radiation and other health issues associated with space.

People are starting to think about genetically modifying humans to be better adapted to somewhere like space. These are big sci-fi concepts, but they are still things we need to be thinking about and setting norms for now because they are going to be on the table over the next several decades to a hundred or so years.

All the technological advances that come from the new space age and biotech are going to come back down to earth. We are going to see acceleration of acceptance of these technologies. Again, I feel like my message here is that, as always, the things we choose to do now are going to change the things we are going to have access to and decide to use later, what we normalize, and how we use it, so we need to be thoughtful about it now, even when it seems like sci-fi concepts.

MAI’A CROSS: That segues nicely to one of the first questions we received from the audience: “How can international law effectively address the growing problem of space debris and ensure accountability for both private companies and nations?”

I think this might resonate most perhaps with Marianne’s area of expertise, and we could think about it beyond international law governance as well, but it is so much about what Anncy was just talking about in terms of planning ahead. We clearly already observe the problem of space debris and the growing role of private companies.

Marianne, do you have any thoughts on that?

MARIANNE RIDDERVOLD: It is of course difficult and in acute need of regulation. There are, however, discussions on issues such as debris and the launch of megaconstellations like the one Starlink launches in the United Nations as we speak even between the major powers, so to speak, but it is very difficult and progressing rather slowly.

One of the very concrete attempts at trying to regulate this is what we see with the EU Space Act, which will regulate all companies that operate in the European market. There are suggestions in this legal text that will have to be adopted, so it will have to be approved by the Member States and European Parliament as well.

For example, any company operating in the European market, whether it is a U.S., Chinese, or European company, will have rules on how they also have to get rid of their space debris in order to be able to operate in this market. That is one attempt, and that could be linked to cooperation with other like-minded states.

We see, for example, in the European Union’s approach in general to international law and regulations now that international cooperation is becoming more difficult, but the European Union is seeking cooperation and common rules and regulations with like-minded countries. We don’t know how this will work in practice because it has not been done before, but if it includes other countries as well it could be a step in this direction and also help facilitate international cooperation because then you have suddenly solutions that can then travel to the international arena.

MAI’A CROSS: Another question that has come in is from Dr. Eric Hubbard: “How do ethics and morality best strategically keep a seat at the table when discussing space expansion, mainly in a commercial and military-dominated power environment?”

ANN THRESHER: I think this is a good question because, as Marianne pointed out earlier, we are into almost an arms race in space. The first people who get there tend to be first people who have access to things and tend to be the winners, so it can be tempting to leave a lot of the ethical principles by the wayside.

We see this historically. We have not done great when it comes from moving from various regions as species in the ways we have treated local groups. We tend to forget about the ethics or deprioritize them in the name of profit or military security.

I think we need to be careful to not let that happen in space. We need to be learning from past mistakes and moving forward with eyes wide open about the way we want to be and who we want to be as a species when we leave our planet.

We need to think strategically about how to make sure ethics is at the table. In some cases that means just talking to your local ethicist, but it also can mean things like ethics training for people who are going into space areas. I teach a lot of classes on ethics, and I often tell my students and people in industry and government when I work with them: “Your job is not to be an ethics expert. Your job is to know enough that you know when to call in the experts to have those conversations.”

We have an ethical obligation toward the people around us, toward everyone else on Earth, and there are experts around. We just need to treat them as experts we call in to have exactly the kinds of conversations that we are having right now.

That can be hard and uncomfortable because often people think experts are going to come in and criticize you for being bad people. That is not our job. Our job is to tell you how to positively interact with the world around you, help make sure that justice issues are not being exacerbated, and that the way we are operating is fair, kind, and thoughtful.

There are only so many ways we can manage that. We still have to be invited to the table to sit there, and that can be a hard thing, so strategically you have to think carefully about who you are talking to and how we are walking forward.

A lot of it comes down to the people who are on this Zoom, people here who are interested in space and the future of humanity in space. If you are interested in those sorts of things, keep in mind these ethical questions and the real ethical implications of this domain, and when in doubt call on your local ethicist.

MAI’A CROSS: Corey, I thought maybe I would bring in an earlier question I almost posed to you, but I wanted to go to audience questions as well. When you think of this from a military perspective, and the key risks in mind, especially if we consider the activities of Russia and China, the risks that they may be placing or already potentially have placed space-based weapons in order, how does Space Force and militaries in general respond to this? Is ethics and morality part of that response, or is it simply a straightforward matter of, “This is a military strategic risk, and we need to respond in kind.”

COREY TRUSTY: From a military space perspective, at least for the U.S. Space Force, ethics and morality remain relevant in everything we do as far as when we reinforce. It is in our mission that we want to protect the domain in, from, and to space. That is the charter mission for us to do. We want to reinforce strategic stability, operational safety, as well as long-term access to the domain.

Embedding responsible conduct, transparency, and stewardship into our doctrine and international norms helps prevent miscalculation, conflict escalation, as well as any type of degradation to critical space assets. Ethical standards strengthen legitimacy in us and in our alliances. We use that as a force multiplier for us to compete in a contested environment. In this way, our morality is not separate from our strategy. It supports resilience, deterrence, and sustained freedom of action in space.

MAI’A CROSS: I have another question here, from Henrik Syse, philosopher and space historian in Norway: “Given the very difficult and conflictual geopolitical atmosphere between China, the United States, and certainly Russia, what role can and should other major space powers such as Europe, Japan, and India play in strengthening the ambitions and norms toward space collaboration found in the Outer Space Treaty?”

I think Marianne already illustrated what Europe is doing and particularly the European Space Agency. Do you have any insights on countries beyond Europe that are interacting more globally in terms of trying to deescalate the conflictual geopolitical atmosphere?

MARIANNE RIDDERVOLD: Absolutely. I also see that in the UN setting, for example. Countries like the European Union Member States, Canada, and Japan are very active in trying to facilitate international cooperation in space. In this new multipolar world, the middle powers need to stand up, join forces, and try to protect as much international cooperation and international regulation as one can. What I have seen at least is that space is actually part of these discussions.

For example, the European Space Agency—which is not part of the European Union, to make it even more confusing—and the Japan Space Agency cooperate very closely, which is very important because they play into policymaking and international negotiations. Also, at the political level there is space cooperation between, for example, the European Union and Canada, the European Union and India, and the European Union and Japan. I think that is very important. I think that is also something that these states are very well aware of.

If you are able to regulate companies, for example, that operate in these countries, then you would actually regulate at least a lot of what goes on in Low Earth Orbit, even if outer space is a different question.

MAI’A CROSS: I have a question from Ivan, a student from Uzhhorod National University in Ukraine: “How should we ethically evaluate dual-use space technologies where the same satellite infrastructure can support both civilian welfare and military targeting?”

Anncy is the ethicist here, and I will also ask Corey because of this question of how we understand the risks and respond to dual-use space technologies that have both civilian and military potential purposes.

ANN THRESHER: This is a very good and complicated question. Basically, everything is dual-use. A hammer is an important tool for building, but it can also be used to kill someone. Dual-use becomes a fraught question from an ethics perspective. At what point do you regulate, at what point do you manage, and at what point do you ban something because it is too risky as a dual-use technology? I don’t think I have good clear answers. A lot of this is going to be very context based.

We need to be able to remove satellites from orbit. The standard way right now is by burning them up in the upper atmosphere; you just de-orbit them and let them burn up, but recent studies have shown that about 20 percent of the particles in the upper atmosphere now are remnants of satellites. We are essentially starting to change the albedo of the upper atmosphere with satellite debris. It is plastics, metals, and so forth.

That is a very bad plan. We do not know what the long-term repercussions of that are. We are essentially accidentally geoengineering our upper atmosphere right now.

That is not a viable option anymore, so we need to be thinking about ways to manage, mitigate, and remove satellites. We cannot just ban the technology altogether, so we end up in this weird place where we need something new about how to regulate the way people can use these things or kinds of de-orbiting technologies to get put into space, but there is no clean and easy way.

To throw things back to Marianne and Corey, it is going to be regulation. We have to think very carefully about the way we allow people to use these things because we cannot ban a lot of them.

It is different when there are things like nuclear weapons in space, which as far as we know no one is actually talking about. It is not good logistics to put nuclear weapons into space.

There are clear lines and there are blurry lines. It is hard to figure out what to do about those blurry lines. Unfortunately, the answer just becomes that we have to be more proactive about the way we regulate and understand these things, and that requires international understandings.

One of the problems with space is that everyone has access to it. You cannot bottleneck it in the way you might with other things, so everyone has to sign on to these things or we are going to see rogue actors, or if somewhere like India refuses to regulate, a lot of the industries are going to move to India because they are going to have better access and less regulation over these things.

There are a lot of complexities here. I do not have good answers beyond, yes, I think we have to throw this back to the regulation people to figure out.

MARIANNE RIDDERVOLD: I understand why this question comes from Ukraine, because we see this all the time with the Ukrainian society being so dependent on critical infrastructure developed and provided by private actors. The fact that so many of these capabilities are owned by private actors that are not really regulated makes a huge difference from having publicly owned critical infrastructure in space.

What you see in Ukraine is that they rely so much on capabilities provided by Starlink, but at the same time we see that Russia also uses the same capabilities in their warfare against Ukraine. In the last few days we have seen that Starlink has actually cut some access to the Russian military, but everyone depends all the time on how some private actors perceive the conflict and what they are willing to do for each side, so it is super-complicated.

That is absolutely something that should be discussed ethically because the implications are so enormous. It also goes to what we are trying to do in Europe, where they are trying to regulate these companies, trying to distinguish between public and private needs, and also having more publicly owned satellites. That is the European approach in that sense, and that is very much the reason why the European Union is launching its own satellites which can be used for communications, navigation, and surveillance purposes for the military. This is precisely linked to experiences from Ukraine, and they wish not to be dependent on private actors who are not really regulated in this domain.

COREY TRUSTY: From a military space perspective these dual-use space technologies should be evaluated through a lens of responsible use and proportionality as well as strategic stability. Because the same satellite system can enable civilian services and military targeting, ethical assessments must consider how their employment aligns with the laws of armed conflict—minimizing harm to civilians—and also avoiding any type of unnecessary escalation.

We have to have clear doctrine, transparency where feasible, and then we have to have restraint in targeting decisions, which helps preserve legitimacy as well as protect critical global infrastructure. Ultimately, ethical evaluation ensures the military advantage. It does not undermine our long-term access as well as alliance cohesion or stability in the space domain.

MAI’A CROSS: That is great. Thank you so much to the speakers for outlining your perspectives on these critical and timely questions. I think we learned so much from your comments about the challenges ahead but also the opportunities and how we are in some ways inevitably heading toward being more of a spacefaring society. To think ahead to incorporate ethical frameworks to try to prevent the weaponization of space, even as we dependent on it every single day for our infrastructure, is crucial going forward.

I want to thank these outstanding panelists who are sharing their expertise with us today. Thank you to the audience as well for your wonderful questions, and I hope this gives you some food for thought going forward as you think about space.