I largely agree with this, and would go further and say I think that in most cases I don’t think space governance is even a solution to the problems humanity want to solve, as much as a background consideration that will need to be taken into account if deploying some potential solutions, and one which you probably need to speak with the specialists if you are deploying those solutions.
“Space governance” can easily be compared to international policy because much of it is a niche specialism within that category (especially the “what about the future of the solar system” questions that seem to animate longtermists). For more practical near term considerations like monitoring the environment or crop health or human rights or threats from passing asteroids, space assets are just tools, albeit tools that are much more useful with someone who understands how to interpret them in legal contexts and how to communicate with policymakers. Other aspects are just about how governments regulate companies’ activity, with a safety aspect that’s closer to the “should we consider this 1 in 10000 possibility of hitting a person” than preventing nuclear armageddon.[1]
Even as one of the few people actually likely to apportion [commercial R&D] grant funding towards a research that could be construed as “space governance” in the next couple of years, I’d really struggle to rate it as being as important for maximising global impact as 80k Hours does.[2] A potentially interesting and rewarding career which can have positive outcomes if people actually listen to you, yes . Amongst the top ten things a talented individual could do to positively impact human lives, nope.
P.S. thanks for linking your paper, I’ll add it to my reading list.
I mean, Kessler syndrome would have a huge impact on some critical technology short term, but that’s a risk addressed by developing technical risk mitigation and debris clearing solutions, not by policy papers for regulators who are very aware of its threat already.
I broadly agree with your view, but think I strongly disagree with the conclusion. There seem to be lots of worlds where having some small percentage of total EA focus include this area pays off hugely. So while I agree it’s not the highest impact area, because of synergies, it seems somewhat likely for it to be part of the highest impact portfolio.
I’m pushing back more at 80k ranking it as a priority above the likes of global health or mental health rather than concluding it doesn’t have any value and nobody should be studying it!
I mean, something like CleanSeaNet probably is cost effective using standard EA [animal welfare] metrics, it’s certainly very effective at stopping oil dumping in the Med, but I wouldn’t treat that sort of program as a higher level of priority than any other area of environmental law enforcement (and it’s one which is already relatively easy to get space agency funding for....).
I didn’t write this post with the intention of criticising the importance of space governance, so I wouldn’t go as far as you. I think reframing space governance in the context of how it supports other cause areas reveals how important it really is. But space governance also has its own problems to deal with, so it’s not just a tool or a background consideration. Some (pressing) stuff that could be very bad in the 2030s (or earlier) without effective space governance:
China/Russia and the USA disagree over how to claim locations for a lunar base, and they both want to build one on the south pole. High potential for conflict in space (would also increase tensions on Earth). Really bad precedent for the long term future.
I think space mining companies have a high chance of accidentally changing the orbits of multiple asteroids, increasing the risk of short warning times from asteroids with suddenly altered orbits (or creation of lots of fragments that could damage satellites). No policy exists to protect against this risk.
Earth’s orbit is getting very full of debris and satellites. Another few anti-satellite weapons tests or a disaster involving a meteroid shower may trigger Kessler syndrome. Will Elon Musk de-orbit all of his thousands of Starlink satellites?
The footprints of the first humans to ever set foot on another celestial body still exist on the moon. They will be destroyed by lunar plumes caused by mining in the 2030s—this will be a huge blow to the long term future (I think it could even be the greatest cultural heritage of all time to a spacefaring civilisation and we’re gonna lose it). All it takes is one small box around some of the footprints to protect 90% of the value.
Earth’s orbit is filled with debris. The moon’s orbit is smaller and we can’t just get rid of satellites by burning them in the atmosphere. No policy exists to set a good precedent around that yet so the moon’s orbit will probably end up being even worse than Earth’s—people are already dodging each other’s satellites around the moon, and ESA & NASA want to build whole networks for moon internet.
Agree there are valid space policy considerations (and I could add to that list)[1], but I think lack of tractability is a bigger problem than neglect.[2] Everyone involved in space already knows ASAT weapons are a terrible idea, they’re technically banned since 1966, but yes, tests have happened despite that because superpowers gotta superpower. As with many other international relations problems—and space is more important than some of those and less than others - the problem is lack of coordination and enforceability rather than lack of awareness that problems might exist. Similarly Elon’s obligation to deorbit Starlink at end of life is linked to SpaceX’s FCC licence and parallel ESA regulation exists.[3] If he decides to gut the FCC and disregard it, it won’t be from lack of study into congested orbital space or lack of awareness the problem exists.
“Examine environmental effects of deorbiting masses of satellites into the mesosphere and potential implications for future LEO deorbiting policy” would be at the top of my personal list for timeliness and terrestrial impact...
I largely agree with this, and would go further and say I think that in most cases I don’t think space governance is even a solution to the problems humanity want to solve, as much as a background consideration that will need to be taken into account if deploying some potential solutions, and one which you probably need to speak with the specialists if you are deploying those solutions.
“Space governance” can easily be compared to international policy because much of it is a niche specialism within that category (especially the “what about the future of the solar system” questions that seem to animate longtermists). For more practical near term considerations like monitoring the environment or crop health or human rights or threats from passing asteroids, space assets are just tools, albeit tools that are much more useful with someone who understands how to interpret them in legal contexts and how to communicate with policymakers. Other aspects are just about how governments regulate companies’ activity, with a safety aspect that’s closer to the “should we consider this 1 in 10000 possibility of hitting a person” than preventing nuclear armageddon.[1]
Even as one of the few people actually likely to apportion [commercial R&D] grant funding towards a research that could be construed as “space governance” in the next couple of years, I’d really struggle to rate it as being as important for maximising global impact as 80k Hours does.[2] A potentially interesting and rewarding career which can have positive outcomes if people actually listen to you, yes . Amongst the top ten things a talented individual could do to positively impact human lives, nope.
P.S. thanks for linking your paper, I’ll add it to my reading list.
I mean, Kessler syndrome would have a huge impact on some critical technology short term, but that’s a risk addressed by developing technical risk mitigation and debris clearing solutions, not by policy papers for regulators who are very aware of its threat already.
More impactful at the margin than global health!
I broadly agree with your view, but think I strongly disagree with the conclusion. There seem to be lots of worlds where having some small percentage of total EA focus include this area pays off hugely. So while I agree it’s not the highest impact area, because of synergies, it seems somewhat likely for it to be part of the highest impact portfolio.
I’m pushing back more at 80k ranking it as a priority above the likes of global health or mental health rather than concluding it doesn’t have any value and nobody should be studying it!
I mean, something like CleanSeaNet probably is cost effective using standard EA [animal welfare] metrics, it’s certainly very effective at stopping oil dumping in the Med, but I wouldn’t treat that sort of program as a higher level of priority than any other area of environmental law enforcement (and it’s one which is already relatively easy to get space agency funding for....).
I agree about that.
I didn’t write this post with the intention of criticising the importance of space governance, so I wouldn’t go as far as you. I think reframing space governance in the context of how it supports other cause areas reveals how important it really is. But space governance also has its own problems to deal with, so it’s not just a tool or a background consideration. Some (pressing) stuff that could be very bad in the 2030s (or earlier) without effective space governance:
China/Russia and the USA disagree over how to claim locations for a lunar base, and they both want to build one on the south pole. High potential for conflict in space (would also increase tensions on Earth). Really bad precedent for the long term future.
I think space mining companies have a high chance of accidentally changing the orbits of multiple asteroids, increasing the risk of short warning times from asteroids with suddenly altered orbits (or creation of lots of fragments that could damage satellites). No policy exists to protect against this risk.
Earth’s orbit is getting very full of debris and satellites. Another few anti-satellite weapons tests or a disaster involving a meteroid shower may trigger Kessler syndrome. Will Elon Musk de-orbit all of his thousands of Starlink satellites?
The footprints of the first humans to ever set foot on another celestial body still exist on the moon. They will be destroyed by lunar plumes caused by mining in the 2030s—this will be a huge blow to the long term future (I think it could even be the greatest cultural heritage of all time to a spacefaring civilisation and we’re gonna lose it). All it takes is one small box around some of the footprints to protect 90% of the value.
Earth’s orbit is filled with debris. The moon’s orbit is smaller and we can’t just get rid of satellites by burning them in the atmosphere. No policy exists to set a good precedent around that yet so the moon’s orbit will probably end up being even worse than Earth’s—people are already dodging each other’s satellites around the moon, and ESA & NASA want to build whole networks for moon internet.
Well I did say I went further than you!
Agree there are valid space policy considerations (and I could add to that list)[1], but I think lack of tractability is a bigger problem than neglect.[2] Everyone involved in space already knows ASAT weapons are a terrible idea, they’re technically banned since 1966, but yes, tests have happened despite that because superpowers gotta superpower. As with many other international relations problems—and space is more important than some of those and less than others - the problem is lack of coordination and enforceability rather than lack of awareness that problems might exist. Similarly Elon’s obligation to deorbit Starlink at end of life is linked to SpaceX’s FCC licence and parallel ESA regulation exists.[3] If he decides to gut the FCC and disregard it, it won’t be from lack of study into congested orbital space or lack of awareness the problem exists.
“Examine environmental effects of deorbiting masses of satellites into the mesosphere and potential implications for future LEO deorbiting policy” would be at the top of my personal list for timeliness and terrestrial impact...
And above all, am struggling to see the marginal impact being bigger than health. as 80k suggested.
It’s also not in SpaceX’s interests to jeopardise LEO because they extract more economic value from that space than anyone else...