The space sector: The priority beyond geopolitics

The drone Ingenuity managed to complete its fourth flight on Mars](https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/video/marte-nasa-helicoptero-ingenuity-nueva-mision-despues-de-cuatro-vuelos-exitosos-encuentro-guillermo- arduino/), flown by NASA over 400 million kilometers. In the past year, similar feats have been accomplished: [the _Crew Dragon_ trips to the International Space Station (ISS)](https://www.dw.com/es/la-crew-dragon-se-separ%C3% B3-from-space-station-to-return-to-earth/a-57401056) or successfully place [_rover_ _Perseverence_ on Martian soil](https://spacenews.com/perseverance -lands-on-mars/). Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated lives, economies and raised tensions between citizens and countries. In the Middle East and Africa, conflicts and famine continue; at the same time that the climate crisis is becoming more serious. It seems illogical to celebrate the sending of a rover, when there are so many problems on Earth, it is contradictory to invest in space exploration and ignore social emergencies.

However, in addition to the collateral benefits it has provided over the years, the space sector will be the next arena for cooperation or competition, regardless of the problems on Earth. It represents opportunities in technology, science, economics, mitigation of the climate crisis and geostrategy.

The space sector of before and its political importance

After the launch of the Sputnik 1 satellite, in 1957, the analyst Philip W. Quigg argued that "space was a kingdom apart, subject to its own natural laws but, until now, beyond the reach of those created by man" by what was a neutral area that, in a Cold War context, would need "regulation on something that is not known and, if not mediated correctly, will result in conflicts of interest that will be beyond the reach of institutions and citizens" .[1] But contrary to popular belief, Sputnik 1 was the result of multilateral work promoted by both the US and the USSR: More than 26 countries came together in a collective effort to formalize the International Geophysical Year ( IGY) 1957-1958 whose project was the launch of the satellite.[2]

Panic was felt by only a few political actors: polls carried out a few days after the launch showed that 13% of citizens considered it a blow to the US, while the rest saw it as an achievement of humanity. Initially, space exploration was driven by cooperation and “going further”. An example of this is that despite having been founded during the Cold War, NASA is an institution whose focus is civil; so much so that Lyndon B. Johnson, still as a senator, lobbied to exclude the role of the military sector in space missions, pressured in turn by international treaties.[3]

The latter sought to address the concerns that Quigg described in 1958 and its importance lies in the fact that they projected that the space sector would grow in the coming decades. Today there are five United Nations treaties in this regard, as well as five other principles approved by the General Assembly that seek to maintain neutrality in the sector and [to date, international agreements are being promoted to mediate it](https://cemeri.org/opinion /agreements-artemis-capitalism-and-hegemony/).[4]

However, as the Cold War progressed (with the missile crisis, the Vietnam War and the nuclear race) the discourse of Sputnik as an achievement of humanity faded and the space race began, a political narrative that became the main justification for investing in the space. The federal budget that was invested during the Cold War versus the one that is invested today shows the geopolitical motivation of that time: at the height of the Apollo program, the US came to allocate 4.41% of the federal budget in the sector, when since 1990 the maximum has been 1.05 percent.[5][6]

Source: Own elaboration with data from Tax Policy Center (2021).

Although the ideological conflict of the 20th century made its political relevance clear, the collateral benefits broaden the impact of the sector, making it a priority for more actors than States.

The relevance of the space sector

The 21st century brought new security dilemmas, uneven globalization, climate crisis, civil conflicts and humanitarian crises. In this context, it seems that the population no longer thinks that space is a priority, but there is significant civilian support for space programs. According to a Pew Research survey, 72% of citizens consider it essential that the US continue as the leader in space exploration, 80% think the ISS is a wise investment.[7]

It is also important to look at age, political affiliation and education in these opinions: 70% of millennials, 73% of Generation X and 71% of Baby Boomers consider space exploration a priority today (88%, 78% and 75% respectively are in favor of the space station). Similarly, both 72% of Democrats and Republicans favor space exploration. Regarding education: 69% of people with high school or less, 70% with some higher education and 80% with higher education, see space exploration as a priority for the future (72%, 80% and 90% respectively for investment in the ISS).[8] It is not only about politics, but it is considered pertinent in several areas.

A Spatial Perspective

Being a multidisciplinary sector, it cannot be confined to a single perspective. For this reason it is important to review the impact it has in various areas such as climate change, the economy and humanitarian aid. In the first place, it is impossible to deny the effects on the atmosphere of the fuels used, so the launches of a Space Shuttle rocket, which emits an average of 443 metric tons of CO2 per launch, represents a serious ecological blow, even with a fuel that it is mostly water vapor.[9] Although the end does not justify the means, the benefits soften it by being numerous and effective.

It has been NASA that has raised awareness about the climate crisis through publications, lobbying and technology. For example, in 1968, astronaut William Anders returned from orbiting the moon with the photograph Earthrise, which was a watershed in the perception of the planet's fragility. In his words: “we went to explore the moon, and the most important thing we discovered was the Earth.” \ [10 ]

In practical terms, the NASA satellite revealed the hole in the ozone layer in the Arctic, raising awareness in the global community and motivating the Montreal Protocol of 1987, the first international agreement on environmental impact (which gave rise to the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Climate Change [IPCC] in 1988).[11]

It would be impossible to list and describe all the innovations or benefits space exploration has brought. In general, there are renewable energy technologies, such as solar energy[12], or the monitoring and projection system, used both for natural disasters and for monitoring ecosystem changes, invasive species of flora and fauna, impact of deforestation (important for the accountability of States and companies), droughts or surveillance of corals in various oceans.[13] Finally, one of the most important innovations is the ability to generate oxygen on Mars, recent experiment completed by Perseverance with huge potential to clean pollutants from air and other applications.

However, for some it does not justify prioritizing it over the humanitarian issue, where the “either/or” argument seems to leave no room for “this and the other”. Believing that stopping investment in space would solve humanitarian crises is a simplistic vision of the world, considering that the idea of fixing inequality with more money has been counterproductive in many regions.

In that case, it would be better to review the budgets of other institutions such as the National Endowment of the Arts, which has eight times more budget than NASA, but is necessary to promote art; or like FIFA or the Olympic Committee, despite the fact that sport is of great importance. With that in mind, the space industry is indispensable to today's scientific advancement and also to the economy.[14] NASA employs more than 18,000 Americans. Innovations such as GPS, which is worth $56 billion a year[15] and social programs that have benefited farmers in developing countries also emerged from the space sector. All this without taking into account the impact of companies like Space X.[16]

The space sector is already a priority that is linked to many others. In the future it will be increasingly relevant for civil, public and private actors, so despite the criticism, the powers will continue to develop it.

Priority is evident in actions and events

On May 1, 2021, the Joe Biden administration appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to chair the US National Space Council.[17] Placing such a high-ranking figure always is an important strategy for affirm the relevance of an agenda; in addition to giving an unusual follow-up to the Trump administration, who founded the [Space Force](http://Space Force: what is the new US military service that Donald Trump officially launched https://www.bbc .com/mundo/noticias-internacional-50876950) in 2019. Working together with industries such as SpaceX and Boeing represents the need for cooperation and the urgency to maintain leadership in a future area of competence. Both China and Russia took the initiative to lead the next ISS as soon as the current one is obsolete.

Regarding international institutions and the agreements they propose, these are becoming more and more important. For example, the uncontrolled re-entry of the Chinese March 5B rocket on May 9 was harshly criticized by international organizations, who reiterated the need to update agreements such as the "Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects" (1972) and the "Convention on the Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space" (1975), in order to ensure that there is accountability for the space debris they have the States (the US and Russia are the ones that generate the most), as well as transparency of what is sent into space (particularly in the case of India and China).[18]

That is, the pieces are moving for all the actors. For now, space represents a neutral point for cooperation, so it should not be pushed aside in favor of “more important things”, leading to the prevalence of political agendas, as in the Cold War. It will be necessary to be vigilant since it could even be the answer to many of the current crises. In the words of author Harold James:

History shows that many crises produce more cooperation. Challenges can spark creativity, better communication, and a greater willingness to learn from effective solutions taken elsewhere. Governments […] realize that their ability to provide the services demanded by their populations requires answers that are found abroad.[19]

In this case, perhaps, they are off-planet.