The Billionaire Boys Club in Space: Another Large Leap for Humankind?

The recent influx of billionaires in outer space, albeit for very brief stints, forces discussion about justice and equity in outer space. Billionaires are spending significant time, money, and resources in getting themselves and a select few into outer space for just a few minutes at a time, but is it worth it? Is it fair to everyone left on Earth? Those are just a couple of the questions that billionaires and the rest of the world can ponder as SpaceX, BlueOrigin, and Virgin Galactic continue to set the pace in the commercial space exploration industry. 

Virgin Galactic’s Richard Branson became the first billionaire to receive his commercial astronaut wings–presented by former ISS commander and astronaut, Chris Hadfield–when he and the crew of the Unity took a sub-orbital trip to approximately 90km above the Earth’s surface (Jonathan Amos, BBC) . Jeff Bezos followed closely behind on the anniversary of Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon when he and three others traveled to approximately 100km above the Earth’s surface, which marks the Kármán line, the unofficial boundary between Earth’s atmosphere and outer space. Not to be outdone by his counterparts, Elon Musk’s SpaceX sent four civilians (one of them being another billionaire) even further into space than Bezos’s New Shepard had taken its passengers.

It may be useful to compare today’s “space race” to the Space Race of the 1960s, which saw the United States and Soviet Union race to various milestones of space exploration, culminating with the United States putting a man on the Moon in 1969. Americans did not universally embrace the Space Race of the 1960s. In fact, a majority of Americans did not even see putting a man on the moon or winning the Space Race as an urgent need or even an important concern for the country according to two Gallup polls conducted in 1962 and 1967 (Ron Carson, Forbes). And while they may not be as universally loathed as Gordon Gekko or Hal 9000, some argue that these billionaires missed the mark investing in commercial space tourism rather than endeavors that more directly advance the public good.

Shannon Stirone, writer for The Atlantic, accuses “über-rich rocket owners” of abandoning Earth during the convergence of crises, a climate crisis and a pandemic, comparing the duo of Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos to Gordon Gekko and Hal 9000 (the reviled and often two-faced villains of Wall Street and the Space Odyssey films). (Shannon Stirone, The Atlantic).  Stirone raises a very good point, the Earth is certainly not the same planet it was during the Space Race and its current inhabitants must face entirely different challenges than those presented in the 1960s. Why should so much money and our best and brightest human capital be spent researching and developing space technology when it could be put toward more immediate concerns on the ground? 

Critics like Stirone and many others certainly recognize the principle articulated above about the benefits of commercial competition in any industry, but they are left to wonder whether a competition among billionaires to see who can leave the planet first is truly competition beneficial to all mankind and whether those resources are better spent increasing competition toward solutions to climate change, disease, famine, and improving satellite telecommunication networks. The emergence of a modern “Space Race” among billionaires raises serious concerns under the Outer Space Treaty (OST), which provides at Article I that any exploration and use of outer space “shall be carried out for the benefit of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” (Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 27. Jan. 1967, 18 U.S.T. 2410, 610 U.N.T.S. 205). 

This language in the OST has given rise to primary interpretations. The first interpretation explains that this provision makes outer space the common heritage of mankind. The common heritage principle argues that all countries should benefit from any research or exploitation of resources in outer space. Under this interpretation of Article I, Bezos, Branson, other billionaires, and arguably the nations that their companies call home may be defying international law. But even if some duty to share the benefits of space with others does exist under international law, it is ill-defined and likely non-binding, even among States who have ratified the OST. Thus, the United States (as the only launching state of civilian commercial space flights to date) is likely not risking much by sending billionaires and other civilians into space for nothing but commercial gain. 

The other interpretation of Article I’s language is that it provides that outer space shall be used and explored for the common benefit of mankind. The common benefit interpretation argues that all mankind benefits when any major innovation or advancement related to outer space technology and exploration occurs. Under this interpretation, the proliferation of billionaires in space simply marks a step in the journey toward a world where space is accessible to civilians from all countries, not just billionaires and “über-rich rocket owners.”

According to a NASA Systems Engineer writing in 2018, the cost of a typical commercial space launch to LEO reduced by a factor of 20 over a decade. (Harry W. Jones, The Recent Large Reduction in Space Launch Costs (48th Int’l Conf. on Environmental Systems, 2018), https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/2346/74082/ICES_2018_81.pdf). This revelation vindicates the common heritage interpretation of Article I of the OST, whose proponents see progress on the horizon now that those civilian passengers on the Unity, New Shepard, and Inspiration4 have taken the metaphorical small steps for man and large leaps for mankind. Private space tourism may be the beginning of a commercial space-to-space age (Matt Weinzierl and Mehak Sarang, Harvard Business Review). This means that goods and services will be produced or provided in space by satellites or other spacecraft. The commercial market in the space-to-space industry could be massive, and the more money that goes into research and development of better space objects and launch vehicles, the faster that space-to-space market can be tapped. 

Now that the Space Race is run among the billionaires, the rest of the world is left to see how the new technology will help the masses. While not universally appreciated, competition among the über-rich does increase innovation in the industry and has proven to drive down costs for commercial, government, and military contracts. The common heritage interpretation of Article I of the OST has gained little traction among the international community, despite objections by less scientifically and economically developed countries. The common benefits principle on the other hand has justified the leaps and bounds made by major space powers such as the U.S., China, and Russia, while less developed countries are often left to watch from the sidelines. Ultimately, the billionaires and the countries that support their commercial space activities are at no real risk of violating international law as they pour money into their personal, commercial pursuits, but it remains to be seen whether those pursuits may serve the common heritage of mankind through public benefit.