The Three Laws of Space Exploration
A changing landscape
The assertion that the emergence of a profusion of unconventional space actors on the landscape is changing the way in which we manage space activities, is everything except new or debatable. Nor is it surprising to witness the change of paradigm in the way agencies and industries now manage launch and satellite procurement.
In that sense, the USA has applied the same principle used in the past by their and several other governments: heavy investments by the public sector, followed by transitioning the knowhow and other assets to the private sector, with the aim of reaping the economic benefits from these early investments and generating new business models. In an overwhelmingly capitalistic environment, this model makes for the creation of new markets and generation of wealth.
Only in regions of the globe where the mechanisms for facilitating the creation of new companies and their access to venture capital are insufficiently developed or hampered is this new model inexistent or, at best, embryonic.
The colossal fortunes behind the two main US actors of the so-called “Space 2.0” sector, as well as the accumulated experience of many other companies in terms of the diversity of management approaches, are such that it is hard to imagine how the tremendous lagging behind of other countries can still be reduced in any significant manner, except perhaps where there is national will to do so. Indeed, India and China have started to support similar schemes, varying in structure and scope according to their regional specificities. In Europe, the industrial ecosystem that would become able to generate such alternative models is, at best, limited.
As has been advocated and commented upon by many different stakeholders (scientists, lawyers, public, media), future sustainability of this new business model is however still far from being assured. It is not clear that, beyond the immediate use of Low Earth Orbit for communication and internet, the business model of returning to the Moon, asteroids and Mars to establish bases, “live off the land” by exploiting local resources or even use these resources for Earth based uses, has any demonstrated basis.
However, whether these more distant business cases are simply pipe dreams borne out of the need to create motivating communication strategies, or whether they represent realistic plans for the exploitation of the solar system, it remains that the established presence of companies like SpaceX, OneWeb or Blue Origin have started to change the immediate environment of the Earth.
They also seem to have created serious prospects for mirroring this approach around, or on the surface of, other solar system objects.
If there are still doubts about whether this latter objective is real, the significant pressure exerted by various actors for relaxing the COSPAR planetary protection guidelines for the Moon or Mars, currently accepted by all public agencies, can serve as an indicator.
The first visible manifestation of this immediate environmental change concerns the modification of the night sky due to tens of thousands rather than thousands of satellites crossing the fields of view of astronomical telescopes, dimming the night more than what it is today. One can jokingly wonder whether Digges, Olbers, Kepler, Halley and Cheseaux could have as easily formulated what Bondi later coined as the Olbers “paradox” , if they had lived in this age!
More seriously, the issue is becoming challenging to ground based astronomers, not to mention amateur astronomers and the public.
It is important to note however that, in all fairness to the private sector, most if not all of these companies have repeatedly indicated their willingness to act as good stewards of the environment in the solar system and have so far behaved accordingly. In the example given above, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has for instance successfully established a Working Group to address and potentially remedy the problems of light pollution caused by the satellite constellation streaks.
For more information on this subject, one can visit the web site the IAU Centre for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Skies from Satellite Constellation Interference at https://cps.iau.org/
SpaceX and Blue Origin, amongst others, have dutifully accepted to participate actively in this working group and work on the engineering aspects of reducing this light pollution. In all meetings I have attended, representatives from the industry challenged on this matter have systematically indicated their commitment to contributing to a sustainable exploration scenario.
The road to hell, they say, is paved with good intentions… As with all human matters however, intentions are only good insofar as their implementation can be monitored, checked and appropriately regulated. This is particularly true when dealing with matters that humankind has not encountered before, or at least, encountered without an already existing detailed and enforceable legal framework.
If one looks at the Mars case, there have been allegations that Earth based legislation would not apply to a “colony” there. This can be seen with statements such as this one from the StarLink terms of service: “…For Services provided on Mars, or in transit to Mars via Starship or other colonization spacecraft, the parties recognize Mars as a free planet and that no Earthbased government has authority or sovereignty over Martian activities.
Accordingly, disputes will be settled through self governing principles, established in good faith at the time of the Martian Settlement…”
This provocative statement was later downplayed but not retracted to the author’s knowledge and is discussed based on its legal validity in, e.g. Salmeri (2020) and Chon Torres (2021).
The so called “Outer Space Treaty” (OST 1967) essentially binds the legal regime of outer space. Although there are five UN treaties in total concerning space-related activities, including the so-called “Moon Agreement”, the OST is the only one that received real support in terms of the number of space players (112 states or organizations have ratified it). Its limits are set through Article I (‘province of all mankind’), Article II (non appropriation principle), Article III (international law and the UN Charter) and Article VI (international responsibility).
Article VI of the OST covers the "colonization" aspect. This means that States are responsible for activities of non governmental entities, including their private sector, and that it is for the State’s party to OST to define the limits in national regulatory frameworks. This applies as well to missions to the Moon and other celestial bodies (including Mars) such that, at least in the initial phase of such missions, it is the responsibility of the State to authorize and supervise such activities.
This means of course that actors from the private sector are fortunately in no position to regulate their space activities. This is the prerogative of governments.
In that sense, Mars is definitely not a "free" planet. Beyond light pollution of the sky, which we can reasonably assume most people will view as a rather moderate discomfort, other aspects are also important. This is the case for the protection of the heritage of space exploration sites (for instance, landing sites of Apollo modules on the Moon) for cultural or historical reasons. Even more importantly, this is the case for the protection of the solar system bodies from biological contamination from Earth based micro organisms –and also of the Earth biosphere from putative micro-organisms returned from those celestial bodies.
Overall, the question of which legal framework is able to flank the sustainable exploration and use of the solar system, broadly discussed in various forums (e.g. Crawford 2021), is a critical aspect of this matter. In particular, how do we ensure that we can protect scientific exploration of space in the future, while enabling its exploration and use by other actors than scientists?
In short, will outer space be the Wild West all over again, or does it need regulations (and the means to enforce these)? I argue here in favour of regulated scientific exploration and enhanced economic development, something not achievable if the “West” of space were to be truly “Wild”.
COSPAR, the Committee for Space Research, has initiated a discussion amongst several of its panels that are relevant to the subject of sustainable space exploration. With its Panel on Exploration (PEX) for self standing reasons; with its Panel on Planetary Protection (PPP), which focusses on the operational mandate of (biological) planetary protection sensu stricto; naturally with its Panel on Potentially Environmentally Detrimental Activities in Space (PEDAS); and lastly with its newly created Panel on Social Sciences and Humanities (PSSH).
COSPAR holds no specific mandate under the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty of 1967 to address the topic of sustainable space exploration. Regardless, I argue that COSPAR’s role with UNCOPUOS in establishing the planetary protection guidelines in guiding compliance with the relevant terms of OST 67 are indicative of COSPAR’s capacity to serve as the ideal forum to address this matter at a scientific and societal level. UNCOPUOS has established a Working Group to address this matter with nations https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/working-groups.html
A recommendation to UNCOPUOS and subsequent related activities that COSPAR could undertake for them, could therefore fall within the remit of the Memorandum of Understanding COSPAR has with the United Nations.
The pathway to this discussion is to hold a series of workshops to gather input and thoughts from the relevant communities, and draft a White Paper to express what is at stake and make recommendations to the concerned stakeholders (industry, policy, legal).
Naturally the more political and legal aspects of this problem should be left to governments and international entities.
The matter of which regulations should apply here is nevertheless a very difficult one, as highlighted in the section above on the Outer Space Treaty. I attempt in the following to identify a possible pathway for doing so.
Isaac Asimov
In 1942, in what was to become one of the most important works in modern science fiction, writer scientist Isaac Asimov (1920 1992) introduced what later became known as “the Three Laws of Robotics”, in a short story called “Runaround”.
The Three Laws of Robotics can be quoted as:
First Law.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
As mentioned, we do not envisage that the future legal framework that nations will need to establish for the dissemination and use of ‘PR’ (Personal Robots) will directly use the three laws of robotics as envisaged by Isaac Asimov. Nevertheless, they can serve as useful tools to frame the concept of what robots can and cannot do, in most cases.
Asimov soon discovered–or had anticipated–that no human legislation language could be expected to cover all possible situations, and sure enough, loopholes or new horizons appeared throughout his fertile imagination. For instance, his character R (for Robot) Daneel Olivaw arrived by himself at the concept, long known to politicians, that humanity may (should?) take precedence over individuals. It was therefore one of Asimov’s creations, a robot, who arrived independently at what was then coined the “Zeroth Law of Robotics’, or the fact that a robot had to sometimes give precedence to humanity over a single human being (Asimov 1950, 1985).
Hence the amended formulation of the Laws of Robotics:
Zeroth Law. A robot may not harm humanity or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
First Law.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, except where this would conflict with the Zeroth Law.
Second Law. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law.
Third Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the Zeroth, First or Second Law. Again, these laws lack the specifics that are unavoidable when dealing with practical legalities, but can provide a useful context to deal with ethical concepts.
How is this relevant in any way to the alleged objective of this article? I argue here that it would be useful to construct a similar body of “laws” to frame sustainable space exploration.
All exploring space actors could then be expected to follow such a series of rules, as a sort of principle or guiding motto. Jurists, politicians, lawmakers, engineers and scientists could then use this framework to derive the much more descriptive legal arsenal that will become necessary to guide constructive and ethical exploration of outer space for science and society.
In this spirit, I therefore suggest the following set of such rules, as applying to the case of space exploration.
The Three Laws of Space Exploration
First Law.Space exploration agents must not degrade the environment of a planetary body or region or, through ineffective protection measures or inaction, allow the environment to be degraded.
Second Law. Space exploration agents must endeavour to extend the boundaries of knowledge about the Universe by means of robotic or human exploration of space, except when such means would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law. Space exploration agents must protect their exploration assets and means, except when such protection would conflict with the First or Second Law.
It is clear that, however cautious we will have been in elaborating this body of laws, there might be cases where even the First Law of Space Exploration will have to be put to the side, whether this be for practical reasons or otherwise.
One could well envisage, for instance, that applying the First Law with all the necessary rigour could lead to situations where humankind would find itself potentially at risk.
Hence, of course, the need for the “Zeroth Law of Space Exploration”, and the other three laws amended accordingly:
Zeroth Law. Space exploration agents must endeavor to protect humanity and scientific progress.
First Law.Space exploration agents must not degrade the environment of a planetary body or region or, through ineffective protection measures or inaction, allow the environment to be degraded, except where this would conflict with the Zeroth Law.
Second Law. Space exploration agents must endeavour to extend the boundaries of knowledge about the Universe by means of robotic or human exploration of space, except when such means would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law.
Third Law. Space exploration agents must protect their exploration assets and means, except when such protection would conflict with the Zeroth, First or Second Law.
Despite the somewhat candid nature of this approach my faith in human nature has always been my weak point–it is my fervent hope that these could serve as a set of useful guidelines and mind frame for human actors to conduct future space exploration in an ethical, sustainable and useful way.
It could thus become a basis for more concrete and much needed legislation, to be established based upon these principles.
…and guidelines for robotic actors too, of course!
[by Jean-Claude Worms, COSPAR Executive Director
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0851-7341]
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Niklas Hedman for a detailed discussion about the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the related limitations concerning exploitation and
use of outer space. Any mistake in the interpretation of this critical legal framework and limitations is of course my, and not his responsibility. I am also grateful to Ian Crawford, who suggested that I should publish these three “laws” so that they could be quoted in other works and to several other colleagues for their very constructive remarks.
References
OST 1967, Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, entered into force Oct.10, 1967. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspa cetreaty.html
Starlink’s Beta Consumer Service Terms, Section title “Governing Law”, as posted on Starlink’s Reddit account https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/jjti2k/starlink_beta_terms_ of_service/
Salmeri A., No, Mars is not a free planet, no matter what SpaceX says, Space News, December 2020, 25 27 https://spacenews.com/op ed no mars is not a free planet no matter what spacex says/ Chon Torres O.A. (2021). Mars: a free planet? International Journal of Astrobiology 20, 294 299 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1473550421000161
Crawford I.A. (2021), Who speaks for humanity? The need for a single political voice, in Astrobiology: Science, Ethics and Public Policy, O.A. Chon Torres, T. Peters, J. Seckbach and R. Gordon (eds.), 313 338 © Scrivener Publishing LLC.
Asimov, I. (1950). "Runaround", in I, Robot (The Isaac Asimov Collection ed.). New York City: Doubleday. p.40. ISBN 978 0 385 42304 5.
Asimov, I. (1950). The evitable conflict, Astounding Science Fiction, Street and Smith Publishers.
Asimov, I. (1985). Robots and Empire, Doubleday Books, ISBN 0-385-190921.