The Second Space Race primarily concerns economic and national security, and although many nations hope to contribute to the development of this space economy as well as to the establishment of norms and regulations for the future of space, China is currently taking the lead. However, the consequences of a China-led space order include a system that will be influenced by authoritarian values, with long-term strategic consequences for access to space and its resources. In response, the United States must adopt a space policy vision that prioritizes space development and space resource utilization, taking a leadership role for an inclusive future.
Throughout the 1960s, the Cold War struggle between capitalism and communism led the United States and the Soviet Union to dominate the Space Race, hoping that success in space would prove the superiority of one political ideology over another. However, this Space Race was characterized by more than just a battle between political ideologies. Recognizing that the whole world would be watching, each country emphasized the importance of technological demonstration, seeking to prove the supreme power of its own technology by landing on the moon first. That Space Race is now history, but we are entering into a new era where a Second Space Race is upon us—one whose nature is drastically different from its predecessor.
Rather than make technological demonstration the end goal, the Second Space Race views technology (e.g. reusable rockets and autonomous robotic moon landings) as the means to achieve economic and military-related ends. Specifically, the Second Space Race holds the potential for economic profits through advancing Global Positioning System (GPS), e-commerce, satellite internet, and asteroid mining systems.[1] Additionally, it involves the consequences of development in space on military command and control systems, missile early warning and tracking, and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR). In order to understand how this race will unfold, it is necessary to first grasp the role that the great powers (the United States, China, and Russia) and the middle powers (Luxembourg, the U.K., and Japan) play in the future of the space economy.
Currently, China is taking the lead in the Second Space Race. Given President Xi Jinping’s repeated emphasis on the role that space power plays for China’s national rejuvenation, China has placed a priority on developing its space technology as critical “new infrastructure.” However, should China come out ahead in the Second Space Race, the China-led space order would significantly constrict democratic values as well as the extent to which other nations have access to space. If the United States wants to fight for democracy and combat the rise of authoritarian regimes in space, it must recognize that the Second Space Race no longer focuses on technological demonstration and arms control but instead centers around nations’ aspirations to reap the economic benefits of establishing a permanent presence in space. Ultimately, the United States must develop a policy vision of inclusive space development, as failure to do so would enable an authoritarian space regime with little tolerance for diverse voices.
The Great Powers
In the context of space, great powers are nations that have the technological and economic capacity to shape the international space system to their benefit. Great powers are particularly important because they determine how other nations will create space policy.
Among the great powers, China is currently leading the pack. In 2019, Chinese space scientists delineated the Earth-Moon zone and subsequently projected that once the extraction of lunar resources becomes feasible, they can expect an annual return of ten trillion dollars from this region by 2050. To achieve this goal, China has invested in projects including the Tiangong space station, space-based solar power (SBSP), and additional trips to the moon for resource prospecting. Additionally, China was the first nation to establish a separate space service, the People’s Liberation Army Strategic Support Force, and has made plans to operate in cislunar space by 2049. Russia has strategically allied with China in hopes of also establishing itself as one of the future leaders of space power and the space economy. Like China, which tested an Anti-Satellite Weapon (ASAT) in 2007 and developed military space capacities such as Rendezvous and Proximity Operations (RPOs), Russia is improving its military space capacities through expanded research and development (R&D) for projects like co-orbital and kinetic ASATs, jamming, blinding, and RPOs. Finally, both Russian and Chinese investments in R&D for nuclear-propelled spacecraft will prove to be a significant game-changer in the future of deep space travel.
In contrast, the United States did not anticipate the shift from Cold War space exploration missions motivated by prestige to modern space development missions motivated by profit. Still, despite their late arrival to the game, the United States has instituted several policy directives in response to China’s space developments, all of which specifically highlight the significance of the space economy. The US also reconstituted the National Space Council in 2017, established the Space Force in 2019, and released the Artemis Accords in 2020. Moreover, the United States’s private space sector currently offers a slight edge for space technologies like the reusable rocket. Nevertheless, China is quickly catching up, having just recently tested an alleged nuclear-capable hypersonic orbital bombing system, which is one example of a reusable spacecraft.
The Middle Powers
However, all of these great powers recognize that leading the new space order requires more than just ownership of technology; they must also increase their sphere of influence over key middle powers. As a result, China has sought to develop space cooperation through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Spatial Information Corridor that boasts 139 members and accounts for 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product. Some critical middle powers like Luxembourg, the first European country to establish space resource utilization legislation, have joined the BRI. At the same time, Luxembourg has signed the United States-led Artemis Accords.
Middle powers are being pressured by competing alignments, with each calculating the potential economic benefits they gain from joining one great power over another. For instance, Luxembourg’s decision to join the BRI was motivated by the fact that the China Bank posted a five hundred million dollar BRI-themed bond on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange. In addition, China’s National Space Science Center (NSSC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Luxembourg Ministry of the Economy in 2018, effectively establishing a deep space lab to develop technologies for space resource utilization. Similarly, Russia has led its Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) to partner with the BRI. Such strategic decisions by middle powers are everywhere, serving to foster an international space order with China and Russia at the forefront.
By comparison, the United States has yet to devise a compelling institutional vision that nurtures space-related partnerships, as the BRI or EAEU do. Last year, the United Kingdom introduced a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to identify irresponsible behavior in space and establish an Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) which would identify space threats and review existing international agreements. However, the United States must also adopt a stronger stance, advocating on behalf of the smaller nations who have already begun taking such steps toward establishing regulations for space behavior. Indeed, the OEWG resolution passed the UNGA First Committee, illustrating how important democratic powers as a whole view resolutions such as Preventing An Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS). Given its status as a great power, the United States should be taking charge to support such efforts if it wants to create such a democratic framework for the future of space power.
Shaping the Future of Space for Democracy
Space policy is often viewed through the prism of grand strategy, whether referring to critical infrastructure, support for military operations, or contributions to social development. In turn, this framework aligns countries based on how they perceive economic benefits, as evidenced by middle powers’ decisions on whether to settle for a United States-led democratic or a China and Russia-led authoritarian space order. The United States needs to articulate a vision of space development beyond goals of scientific exploration and arms control. If the United States truly wants to open up space for democratic access to space resources, it must first acknowledge the economic incentives that drive whom the middle powers ally with and then offer concrete economic benefits to these nations. Anticipating the future of space resource utilization and development, the United States should also take a leadership role by constructing norms for space regulation. Supporting a ban on ASAT tests that destroy the space domain with destructive space debris would serve as a first step towards building such influence and leadership. In essence, a United States-led democratic space order must promise shared economic benefits, a transparent and equitable legal system, inclusive and diverse representation, and constraints on military power projection.
The Second Space Race has created new avenues to space, where several great powers and a multiplicity of middle powers all aim to accrue economic benefits for their own gain. Considering both the divergent interests and motivations of nations across the world as well as the malleable alignments of the Second Space Race, the United States must lead with a compelling vision and institutional mechanisms for the future of space development and the space economy.
[1] John Lewis, Asteroid Mining 101: Wealth for the New Space Economy (Deep Space Industries, 2014).
Dr. Namrata Goswami is an independent scholar on space policy. She also co-authored Scramble for the Skies: The Great Power Competition to Control the Resources of Outer Space (Lexington Books, 2020).
Image Credit: NASA Johnson is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0