‘Democratizing space' is more than just adding new players – it comes with questions around sustainability and sovereignty
Over the past decade, many countries have established new space programs, including multiple African nations. India and Israel – nations that were not technical contributors to the space race in the 1960s and '70s – have attempted landings on the lunar surface.
With more countries joining the evolving space economy, many of our colleagues in space strategy, policy ethics and law have celebrated the democratization of space: the hope that space is now more accessible for diverse participants.
We are a team of researchers based across four countries with expertise in space policy and law, ethics, geography and anthropology who have written about the difficulties and importance of inclusion in space.
Major players like the U.S., the European Union and China may once have dominated space and seen it as a place to try out new commercial and military ventures. Emerging new players in space, like other countries, commercial interests and nongovernmental organizations, may have other goals and rationales. Unexpected new initiatives from these newcomers could shift perceptions of space from something to dominate and possess to something more inclusive, equitable and democratic.
We address these emerging and historical tensions in a paper published in May 2025 in the journal Nature, in which we describe the difficulties and importance of including nontraditional actors and Indigenous peoples in the space industry.
Continuing inequalities among space players
Not all countries' space agencies are equal. Newer agencies often don't have the same resources behind them that large, established players do.
The U.S. and Chinese programs receive much more funding than those of any other country. Because they are most frequently sending up satellites and proposing new ideas puts them in the position to establish conventions for satellite systems, landing sites and resource extraction that everyone else may have to follow.
Sometimes, countries may have operated on the assumption that owning a satellite would give them the appearance of soft or hard geopolitical power as a space nation – and ultimately gain relevance.
In reality, student groups of today can develop small satellites, called CubeSats, autonomously, and recent scholarship has concluded that even successful space missions may negatively affect the international relationships between some countries and their partners. The respect a country expects to receive may not materialize, and the costs to keep up can outstrip gains in potential prestige.
Environmental protection and Indigenous perspectives
Usually, building the infrastructure necessary to test and launch rockets requires a remote area with established roads. In many cases, companies and space agencies have placed these facilities on lands where Indigenous peoples have strong claims, which can lead to land disputes, like in western Australia.
Many of these sites have already been subject to human-made changes, through mining and resource extraction in the past. Many sites have been ground zero for tensions with Indigenous peoples over land use. Within these contested spaces, disputes are rife.
Because of these tensions around land use, it is important to include Indigenous claims and perspectives. Doing so can help make sure that the goal of protecting the environments of outer space and Earth are not cast aside while building space infrastructure here on Earth.
Some efforts are driving this more inclusive approach to engagement in space, including initiatives like 'Dark and Quiet Skies', a movement that works to ensure that people can stargaze and engage with the stars without noise or sound pollution. This movement and other inclusive approaches operate on the principle of reciprocity: that more players getting involved with space can benefit all.
Researchers have recognized similar dynamics within the larger space industry. Some scholars have come to the conclusion that even though the space industry is 'pay to play,' commitments to reciprocity can help ensure that players in space exploration who may not have the financial or infrastructural means to support individual efforts can still access broader structures of support.
The downside of more players entering space is that this expansion can make protecting the environment – both on Earth and beyond – even harder.
The more players there are, at both private and international levels, the more difficult sustainable space exploration could become. Even with good will and the best of intentions, it would be difficult to enforce uniform standards for the exploration and use of space resources that would protect the lunar surface, Mars and beyond.
It may also grow harder to police the launch of satellites and dedicated constellations. Limiting the number of satellites could prevent space junk, protect the satellites already in orbit and allow everyone to have a clear view of the night sky. However, this would have to compete with efforts to expand internet access to all.
What is space exploration for?
Before tackling these issues, we find it useful to think about the larger goal of space exploration, and what the different approaches are. One approach would be the fast and inclusive democratization of space – making it easier for more players to join in. Another would be a more conservative and slower 'big player' approach, which would restrict who can go to space.
The conservative approach is liable to leave developing nations and Indigenous peoples firmly on the outside of a key process shaping humanity's shared future.
But a faster and more inclusive approach to space would not be easy to run. More serious players means it would be harder to come to an agreement about regulations, as well as the larger goals for human expansion into space.
Narratives around emerging technologies, such as those required for space exploration, can change over time, as people begin to see them in action.
Technology that we take for granted today was once viewed as futuristic or fantastical, and sometimes with suspicion. For example, at the end of the 1940s, George Orwell imagined a world in which totalitarian systems used tele-screens and videoconferencing to control the masses.
Earlier in the same decade, Thomas J. Watson, then president of IBM, notoriously predicted that there would be a global market for about five computers. We as humans often fear or mistrust future technologies.
However, not all technological shifts are detrimental, and some technological changes can have clear benefits. In the future, robots may perform tasks too dangerous, too difficult or too dull and repetitive for humans. Biotechnology may make life healthier. Artificial intelligence can sift through vast amounts of data and turn it into reliable guesswork. Researchers can also see genuine downsides to each of these technologies.
Space exploration is harder to squeeze into one streamlined narrative about the anticipated benefits. The process is just too big and too transformative.
To return to the question if we should go to space, our team argues that it is not a question of whether or not we should go, but rather a question of why we do it, who benefits from space exploration and how we can democratize access to broader segments of society. Including a diversity of opinions and viewpoints can help find productive ways forward.
Ultimately, it is not necessary for everyone to land on one single narrative about the value of space exploration. Even our team of four researchers doesn't share a single set of beliefs about its value. But bringing more nations, tribes and companies into discussions around its potential value can help create collaborative and worthwhile goals at an international scale.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Timiebi Aganaba, Arizona State University; Adam Fish, UNSW Sydney; Deondre Smiles, University of Victoria, and Tony Milligan, King's College London
Read more:
Astronomers have warned against colonial practices in the space industry − a philosopher of science explains how the industry could explore other planets without exploiting them
Astronomers have warned against colonial practices in the space industry − a philosopher of science explains how the industry could explore other planets without exploiting them
The Starbase rocket testing facility is permanently changing the landscape of southern Texas
Tony Milligan receives funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 856543).
Adam Fish, Deondre Smiles, and Timiebi Aganaba do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
India's revision of voter rolls could disenfranchise millions, critics warn
SONEPUR, India — In June, India's election commission gave officials in the eastern state of Bihar a monumental task: verify that each of the state's 80 million registered voters is an Indian citizen, then upload the paperwork to prove it. The deadline? Five weeks. The commission said it was ordering the revision of voter rolls to identify outdated entries, eliminate duplicates and remove illegal immigrants. But as officials fanned out across this vast and impoverished state to knock on doors, and residents struggled to make sense of the new requirements, critics warned that millions of Indians could lose the right to vote — potentially reshaping the political future of the world's largest democracy.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Unleashes a Flurry of Trade Surprises on Eve of Deadline
(Bloomberg) — Donald Trump unleashed a series of tariff deals and demands on the eve of his Friday deadline, including surprises on India and copper as the US president attempts to create a new global trade order. The World's Data Center Capital Has Residents Surrounded An Abandoned Art-Deco Landmark in Buffalo Awaits Revival Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach Trump on Wednesday announced tariffs of 15% on imports from South Korea that matched the rate for neighbor Japan, and a painful 25% levy on imports from India that was accompanied by criticism of its purchases of Russian energy and weapons. Deals were also in the offing for Thailand and Cambodia after they agreed to a ceasefire Monday, buttressing Trump's self-professed goal of being seen as a global peacemaker. Trump shocked markets with new tariff rules on copper, sinking prices in New York by a record after exempting the most widely traded forms of the metals from 50% tariffs. The onslaught comes on the eve of an Aug. 1 deadline, when the White House threatened reciprocal levies for countries without bilateral agreements, which most don't have. Trump has said rates globally will come in from 15% all the way to 50% — executing policies he believes will bring home manufacturing and raise government revenue, while giving him enormous leverage on countries whose exports depend on US consumers. 'Today we got a flurry of details and it's the case of the old saying: 'you can't see the forest for the trees,'' said Rob Subbaraman, chief economist at Nomura Holdings Inc. 'Stepping back, Trump has by and large followed through on his tariff threats. Right now it's just a lot of noise.' Most countries are still without a trade deal, and key details are scant for those who have one — including potential exemptions, investment promises and potential changes to rules of origin. The uncertainty and confusion amid the long rollout of Trump's new trade order has already hit global economic growth and weighed on investment, even as markets remain optimistic. 'These deals ramming against the clock — it's really not a good sign,' said Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis. The reach pushes countries to an agreement to avoid potentially higher levies, but could end up costing their economies more, she said. Meanwhile, the mood music between the US and China remains favorable for now. Speaking in the White House on Wednesday, Trump said the US will have a 'very fair deal with China.' Talks this week in Sweden strengthened trust between the two sides and boosted confidence in resolving economic disputes via discussions, the Communist Party's official newspaper said. The trade news wasn't limited to foreign countries. US consumers and small businesses will soon face higher costs on shipments, as Trump announced tariffs would apply from Aug. 29 on de minimis shipments, or imports that are below $800. Such shipments have been a boon for consumers and retailers, many of them in China, that ship products direct. A surprise reprieve for many Brazilian goods rallied its currency and stocks. Meantime, Bloomberg News reported Trump will speak with his Mexican counterpart Claudia Sheinbaum on Thursday morning, sending the peso higher. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Wednesday that talks with the US may not finish by Trump's Friday deadline. Prospects for a better deal dimmed further when Trump posted on Truth Social that Canada's decision to back Palestinian statehood 'will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them.' For South Korea, the 15% includes autos, as well as a $350 billion South Korean fund for US investments including energy and shipbuilding. As with Japan, the US investments would be directed by Trump, the president said. And for both funds, 90% of the profits would flow back to the US, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a post on X. For India, Trump threatened a still-undefined additional penalty over its purchases of Russian energy, on top of a 25% tariff on imports from the nation. Any move on Russian oil may come up in talks with China, given that Beijing also takes substantial volumes of Moscow's crude, which the US has targeted since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Oil was holding Thursday near the highest in almost six months. Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign up for the Yahoo Finance Morning Brief By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
US support for Israel's actions in Gaza drops, as Democratic opposition grows and MAGA movement splits
Americans' support for Israel's military actions in Gaza is dropping rapidly, prompting pro-Israel Democrats and some of President Donald Trump's long-time allies to warn that the country could permanently damage its standing in the United States. A Gallup poll released this week found that just 32% of US adults support Israel's military actions in Gaza — a record low since the war was launched in response to Hamas' October 7, 2023, terror attack. The poll also found the strongest partisan split yet: Support among those who identify themselves as Republicans remained strong, at 71%. But just 8% of Democrats and 25% of independents say they back Israel's military actions. In perhaps the most ominous long-term sign for backers of Israel, the poll found just 9% support for its actions among those age 18-34 of all political parties. The shift in public opinion has crucial implications for both parties: Some key members of Trump's MAGA movement are vocally questioning whether the United States should keep supporting Israel, while plummeting backing for the country among Democrats will likely impact the party's primaries in key races in 2026 and 2028. The collapse in American support for Israel is part of a global trend. The United Kingdom said this week it would recognize a Palestinian state before the United Nations General Assembly unless Israel takes major steps to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The announcement followed France's decision to do so. United Nations agencies are warning that 'time is running out to mount a full-scale humanitarian response' in the besieged Gaza Strip. Data show that more than one in three people (39%) are now going days at a time without eating, the UN's World Food Programme said in a statement Wednesday, adding that over 500,000 people — almost a quarter of Gaza's population — 'are enduring famine-like conditions.' Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who co-chairs the bipartisan Congressional Israel Allies Caucus, told CNN that Israel is losing the battle for worldwide public opinion. He said Israel's military faces serious challenges in Gaza, where Hamas is willing to incur massive civilian casualties 'to undermine Israel's position in the world,' but said its objectives 'have to be balanced against each other.' 'Israel has to determine, what are its military objectives, and what casualties is it willing to incur to realize that national security includes your image around the world,' Sherman said. 'You can't get everything you want, and your worldwide image is important.' Within the GOP, fissures over Israel's actions came into public view after Trump on Monday disputed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's weekend assertion that there is 'no starvation in Gaza.' 'That's real starvation stuff,' Trump said. 'I see it, and you can't fake that. So, we're going to be even more involved.' Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a prominent figure in Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement, appeared to become the first Republican in Congress to describe the crisis in Gaza as a 'genocide' with a Monday night social media post. 'It's the most truthful and easiest thing to say that Oct 7th in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,' Greene said. Her comment came in a longer post criticizing Florida GOP Rep. Randy Fine, a staunch supporter of Israel. Fine told CNN that 'those who claim that Israel is engaged in genocide are either antisemites or idiots or both.' 'If Israel had wanted to commit a genocide in Gaza, they had the ability to do it. And it would have been done 18 months ago, and it would have been over in two days,' he said. 'Israel has the capability to kill everyone in Gaza, but they haven't. … Hundreds and hundreds of Israeli soldiers have died in order to minimize the deaths of Gaza Arabs.' He argued that Israel should stop putting its own soldiers at risk 'to minimize the deaths of the enemy.' Fine added: 'Israel needs to stop worrying about what the rest of the world thinks and take care of business. Political opinion does not win wars.' While many Republicans still agree with Fine, Steve Bannon, the former Trump chief strategist, said Tuesday on his podcast that there is 'very little support for Israel' within Trump's MAGA movement among those under age 30. 'And now, even people who support Israel are sitting there going, what in the hell's going on here?' Bannon said. Inside the Democratic Party, the issue of support for Israel proved to be a difficult one in 2024 for President Joe Biden and then his replacement atop the ballot, Vice President Kamala Harris, particularly in the battleground state of Michigan. That state, with its large Arab-American population, will host a competitive Senate contest in 2026. And Democrats who hope to run for president in 2028 will surely be pushed on their Israel policies in primaries across the country. Progressive Pennsylvania Rep. Summer Lee, who was one of six members of Congress to support a recent Greene amendment to strip $500 million in funding for Israel's missile defense systems from a defense appropriations bill, said in a statement that, 'The United States has a responsibility to demand a permanent ceasefire, stop funding and supplying the bombs being dropped, and call for unconditional humanitarian aid to enter Gaza immediately. It is good policy, good politics, and the right thing to do.' More establishment figures in liberal media have also sharpened their criticism of Israel in recent days — offering a preview of what could become a significant long-term shift in the party. The former aides to President Barack Obama who host the 'Pod Save America' podcast argued this week that Democratic candidates should stop supporting military aid for Israel. 'There has to be a total mindset change in the Democratic Party,' co-host Tommy Vietor, a former Obama National Security Council staffer, said. 'When the war ends, we are not going back to the pre-October 7 status quo. It's not where the party is. It's not where the world is.' Eric Fingerhut, the president and chief executive officer of the Jewish Federations of North America and a former Ohio Democratic congressman, said the Gallup findings numbers reflect 'overwhelmingly negative media coverage of the war.' 'There's no question that we are in a very partisan moment in America, and that that is an overlay on how people react to the situation in Israel and in the war in Gaza,' Fingerhut said. CNN's Nadeen Ebrahim and Ibrahim Dahman contributed to this report.