‘Democratizing space’ is more than just adding new players – it comes with questions around sustainability and sovereignty

“India is on the Moon,” S. Somanath, president of the Indian Space Research Organization, announced in August 2023. The announcement meant that India had joined the shortlist of countries to have visited the Moon, and the applause and shouts of joy that followed meant that this achievement was not just scientific, but cultural.

Over the past decade, many countries, including several African countries, have established new space programs. India and Israel – countries that did not technically contribute to the space race in the 1960s and 1970s – attempted to land on the moon.

As more countries join the evolving space economy, many of our colleagues in space strategy, political ethics, and law have celebrated the democratization of space: the hope that space will now be more accessible to diverse participants.

We are a team of researchers based in four countries with expertise in space policy and law, ethics, geography and anthropology, who have written about the challenges and importance of inclusion in space.

Major players like the United States, the European Union and China may have once dominated space and viewed it as a place to test new commercial and military ventures. Newly emerging players in space, such as other countries, commercial interests, and non-governmental organizations, may have other goals and motivations. New, unexpected initiatives from these newcomers could shift the perception of space from one to dominate and own towards something more inclusive, equitable and democratic.

We address these emerging and historical tensions in an article published in May 2025 in the journal Nature, in which we describe the challenges and importance of including non-traditional actors and indigenous peoples in the space industry.

Persistent inequalities between space players

Not all countries’ space agencies are equal. Newer agencies often don’t have the same resources as larger, established players.

The U.S. and Chinese programs receive far more funding than those of any other country. Because they most often send satellites, and coming up with new ideas puts them in a position to establish conventions for satellite systems, landing sites, and resource extraction that everyone else may have to follow.

Sometimes countries may have assumed that owning a satellite would give them the appearance of a soft or hard geopolitical power as a spacefaring nation – and ultimately gain relevance.

In fact, today’s student groups can independently develop small satellites, called CubeSats, and recent studies have concluded that even successful space missions can have a negative impact on international relations between some countries and their partners. The respect a country expects to receive may not materialize, and the costs of maintaining standards may outweigh the gains in potential prestige.

Environmental Protection and Indigenous Perspectives

Usually, building the infrastructure needed to test and launch rockets requires a remote area with established roads. In many cases, companies and space agencies have placed these facilities on land where indigenous people have strong claims, which can lead to land conflicts, such as in Western Australia.

Many of these sites have already been subject to human-induced changes, including mining and resource extraction. Many sites have been the scene of tensions with indigenous peoples over land use. Within these contested spaces, disputes are commonplace.

Because of these tensions around land use, it is important to include Indigenous claims and perspectives. This can help ensure that the goal of protecting the environment of space and Earth is not sidelined when building space infrastructure here on Earth.

Some efforts are promoting this more inclusive approach to space engagement, including initiatives like “Dark and Quiet Skies,” a movement that ensures people can observe and interact with the stars without noise or noise pollution. This movement and other inclusive approaches operate on the principle of reciprocity: that a greater number of actors involved in the space can benefit everyone.

Researchers have recognized similar dynamics within the space industry as a whole. Some researchers have concluded that although the space industry “pays to play,” commitments to reciprocity can help ensure that those involved in space exploration who do not have the financial or infrastructural means to support their individual efforts can nevertheless access broader support structures.

The downside of bringing more players into space is that this expansion can make protecting the environment – ​​on Earth and beyond – even more difficult.

The more players there are, both privately and internationally, the more difficult sustainable space exploration could become. Even with good will and the best of intentions, it would be difficult to impose uniform standards for the exploration and use of space resources that would protect the lunar surface, Mars and beyond.

It could also become more difficult to control the launch of satellites and dedicated constellations. Limiting the number of satellites could prevent space waste, protect satellites already in orbit and allow everyone to have a clear view of the night sky. However, this is expected to compete with efforts to expand Internet access to all.

What is space exploration for?

Before addressing these questions, we find it helpful to think about the broader goal of space exploration and the different possible approaches. One approach would be a rapid and inclusive democratization of space, which would allow more actors to participate. Another approach would be a more conservative, slower “big player” approach, which would limit who can go into space.

The conservative approach risks leaving developing countries and indigenous peoples firmly outside a key process that shapes humanity’s common future.

But a faster, more inclusive approach to space would not be easy to implement. More serious players mean it would be harder to reach agreement on regulations, as well as the broader goals of human expansion into space.

Narratives around emerging technologies, such as those needed for space exploration, may evolve over time as people begin to see them in action.

The technology we take for granted today was once viewed as futuristic or fantastical, and sometimes with suspicion. For example, in the late 1940s, George Orwell imagined a world in which totalitarian systems used television screens and video conferencing to control the masses.

Earlier in the same decade, Thomas J. Watson, then president of IBM, predicted that there would be a global market for about five computers. As humans, we are often afraid or wary of future technologies.

However, not all technological changes are harmful, and some technological changes can have clear benefits. In the future, robots may perform tasks that are too dangerous, too difficult, or too boring and repetitive for humans. Biotechnology can make life healthier. Artificial intelligence can sift through large amounts of data and turn it into reliable guesses. Researchers can also see real downsides to each of these technologies.

Space exploration is harder to fit into a simplified narrative about expected benefits. The process is simply too large and too transformative.

Returning to the question of whether we should go to space, our team argues that it is not a question of whether or not we should go, but rather why we are doing it, who benefits from space exploration, and how we can democratize access to broader segments of society. Including a diversity of opinions and perspectives can help find productive ways to move forward.

Ultimately, there’s no need for everyone to settle on a single speech about the value of space exploration. Even our team of four researchers share no conviction about its value. But involving more nations, tribes, and businesses in discussions about its potential value can help create collaborative, internationally valid goals.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent, nonprofit news organization that brings you trusted facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Timiebi Aganaba, Arizona State University; Adam Fish, UNSW Sydney; Niiyokamigaabaw Deondre smiles, University of British Columbiaand Tony Milligan, Ki

Learn more:

Tony Milligan receives funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement no. 856543).

Adam Fish, Niiyokamigaabaw 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.