Blockchain technology has spurred the emergence of powerful narratives to promote new ways of governing outer space. The list of proposed uses for blockchain applications in outer space is endless—from property registries for asteroid mining, to supply chain management systems, or interplanetary cryptocurrencies for the space economy—along with Elon Musk claiming that “SpaceX is going to put a literal Dogecoin on the literal moon.”Footnote 1 Yet, thus far, none of these projects have gone beyond simple declarations or white papers, mostly due to the inherent limitations on the effective enforcement of blockchain-based rules outside of their own technical framework. In this essay, we argue that blockchain technology is relevant for outer space because it fosters novel narrativesFootnote 2 advancing possible futures characterized by new modes of governance. The strongest and most prominent of these narratives is the crypto-libertarian one, which draws heavily on the absence of a state, the sanctity of property, and the primacy of private ordering through decentralized markets. But there are other narratives proposed by relevant actors in the blockchain space that are dedicated to other modes of governance.Footnote 3 By focusing on alternative narratives for blockchain technology, we illustrate how the possible applications of blockchain technology in outer space may extend beyond the current libertarian dreams, to support a more commons-based approach to outer space governance.
International Legal Framework of Outer Space Governance and the Commercial Space Industry
Outer space governance was established through a series of international treaties, enacted during the Cold War period. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (OST) is the most significant piece of legislation in this regard. It establishes an international legal framework for outer space, intended to preserve outer space as a global commons—i.e., a “province of [hu]man kind” that shall remain free for exploration by all states, and that should not be subject to national appropriation by any means (Article II).
At the time of drafting of these treaties, outer space exploration was primarily an affair of national governments, which was principally undertaken for geopolitical purposes. With the exception of a few private efforts, sovereign powers were the main source of investment for space exploration, and—while it was predicted that private actors would eventually engage in outer space activities—it was considered preferable that state actors remain responsible for outer space governance.
Today, however, space activities are increasingly dominated by private actors.Footnote 4 The global space economy grew from 200 billion USD in 2005 to 450 billion USD in 2021, with 80 percent of the revenue generated by private companies, mostly driven by U.S.-based entrepreneurs.Footnote 5 Corporations such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic have already announced the dawn of the “commercial space age.”Footnote 6 While the geopolitical underpinnings cannot be ignored, these companies are participating in the race for space exploration mostly for commercial reasons.Footnote 7
As private entities, these companies are not directly subject to the provisions of these international treaties; yet, they are indirectly affected by them, to the extent that they are expected to respect the laws of the country in which they operate, which are subject to the treaties’ provisions. As a result, it is generally understood that—just like national governments—private companies cannot claim sovereignty over any celestial body in outer spaces. Yet, the wording of the relevant treaties is sufficiently ambiguous as to allow for the commodification of outer space resources by private parties.Footnote 8 Indeed, if the OST framework for the governance of outer space was aimed at preventing national appropriation, it never excluded the possibility of extracting resources from outer space,Footnote 9 provided that the extraction is undertaken “for the benefit and in the interest of all humankind” (Article 1).Footnote 10
Accordingly, in recent years, some countries—such as the United States,Footnote 11 Luxembourg,Footnote 12 the United Arab Emirates,Footnote 13 and JapanFootnote 14—have enacted laws enabling private entities to claim ownership over the resources they extract from outer space, provided that this does not entail or presuppose claims of national sovereignty.Footnote 15 These countries are interpreting the provisions of the OST in such a way as to allow for the private appropriation of resources in outer space, despite the explicit prohibition of national appropriation of celestial bodies.Footnote 16 This interpretation is explicitly recognized in Section 10 of the Artemis Accords of October 2020, stipulating that “the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty.”Footnote 17
This increase of commercial activity and its support in national legislation builds on the presumed distinction between the national appropriation of celestial bodies (through a claim of sovereignty) and the private appropriation of celestial resources (through private property claims). This distinction is grounded on the alleged separation of roles and jurisdictions between the state and the market,Footnote 18 mostly supported by liberal and libertarian visions of society.Footnote 19 Although these visions recognize the complementarity between the market and the state, they consider that resource allocation is generally best achieved through a decentralized market, only involving a minimal stateFootnote 20 in charge of protecting private property rights.Footnote 21
Blockchain Narratives for Outer Space
It is in this alleged separation between the state and the market that blockchain technology enters into play, bringing a new set of narratives for private orderingFootnote 22 based on the myth of an autonomous and decentralized market order.Footnote 23 In particular, blockchain narratives of transnationality (i.e., spanning across multiple jurisdictions)Footnote 24, alegality (i.e., existing beyond the purview of the law),Footnote 25 and self-sovereignty (i.e., operating independently of any sovereign authority)Footnote 26 can be regarded as relevant catalysts for some of the emerging practices of private ordering in outer space.
The decentralized character of blockchain technology facilitates coordination between multiple parties, with no centralized control. The transparency and tamper-resistance of the technology makes it possible for anyone with an Internet connection and a blockchain wallet to record information in a secure and immutable manner, providing a secure audit trail of who has done what when. Finally, the automation inherent in smart contract-based systems enables operations to be carried out automatically by the underlying blockchain network, without any third-party intervention.
While the legal validity and enforceability of these smart contract provisions ultimately depend on the laws of national jurisdictions, blockchain technology enables the creation of an alternative regime to traditional property and contract law, whose enforceability does not depend on the laws of any given country, but rather on the technological rules embedded into a particular blockchain infrastructure. In other words, blockchain technology could be considered as a “new means of securing legal protections” in outer space, despite the lack of an “international consensus on the sovereignty-property relation.”Footnote 27
In light of these above-described features, blockchain technology has come to be regarded as a promising vehicle for advancing decentralized markets that operate independently from any governmental authority.Footnote 28 This narrative of blockchain technology has also been leveraged for raising funds for outer space projects. One of the most well-known examples comes again from Elon Musk, who announced in May 2021 that a SpaceX mission to the Moon with an estimated cost of 62 million USD would allegedly be entirely funded in Dogecoins. There are many other initiatives that advertise blockchain-based fundraising for space ventures (such as Space DecentralFootnote 29 or ConsenSys SpaceFootnote 30)—although it remains to be seen if the money raised will indeed be used for commercial undertakings in outer space.
The problem with these blockchain-based initiatives is that they fail to acknowledge that enforcement cannot be achieved by blockchain technology alone when interacting with non-digital assets. Indeed, while blockchain technology and smart contracts are often said to be self-enforcing or self-executing, this only applies to digital contracts or digital assets that subsist exclusively on the blockchain. As soon as a blockchain-based infrastructure needs to interact with a non-blockchain-based structure, the trustless and self-executing features of the technology fall short—with regard to both collecting inputs and enforcing outputs outside of the blockchain infrastructure.
Whether a blockchain is used as a land-registry for outer space;Footnote 31 as a distributed platform to negotiate and record orbital positions and mining licenses;Footnote 32 as a traffic management system for the identification and the localization of satellites and space debris;Footnote 33 as a supply chain management system for space-related activities; or even as a smart contract framework to control the operations of physical devicesFootnote 34—all of these applications require, on the one hand, a trusted set of “oracles” that can feed the blockchain-based system with external information, and, on the other hand, a third-party enforcement authority that can intervene in case of a dispute. These issues are not specific to outer space; they apply to every application of blockchain technology that needs to interface with a non-blockchain-based structure.
Blockchain-based systems are thus not an effective work-around for the general dependence of private ordering on third-party enforcement institutions. While the Artemis Accords indicate that state-based legislation still has a considerable role to play despite the increased presence of private entities in outer space, how enforcement will be facilitated in outer space—and by whom—is still up for debate.
Alternative Blockchain Narratives for Outer Space
If the currently proposed applications for blockchain in outer space are inherently flawed—due to their dependence on external actors for access to information and for the enforcement of outcomes in the physical world—is there room for blockchain technology to make another potential contribution in the field of outer space?
Beyond the libertarian ideology, blockchain technology has enabled other narratives that could contribute to promoting better governance in outer space fostering a more distributed and participatory framework for decision making. Collectives of researchers, activists, and developers are already experimenting with blockchain technology for the governance of the commons.Footnote 35 They believe this technology brings a long-missing piece to the commons’ governance puzzle through the affordances it offers—e.g., reducing free-riding and enabling the collective management of funds.Footnote 36 Blockchain technology thus appeals to many grassroots communitiesFootnote 37 and decentralization advocates,Footnote 38 who see in this technology new opportunities for distributed and participatory governance.
Beyond grassroots communities, the technology could also serve the interests of both public and private space actors in enhancing institutional trust, not by relying on automated enforcement but rather by enhancing transparency and accountability. Indeed, blockchain technology is particularly well-suited for the governance of polycentric systems, where a variety of actors—often with diverging economic and political interests—need to come to a consensus about a particular course of action, without reliance on a centralized authority to coordinate their actions. Accordingly, many of the attempts at designing new distributed governance structures in the context of blockchain applications could potentially be transposed to the outer space field. A blockchain could be used, for instance, to support international cooperation and facilitate the reconciliation of transactions amongst multiple interacting actors through a shared database that is held in common by all relevant stakeholders. This is currently being done by the Space 4.0 initiative of the European Space Agency,Footnote 39 leveraging smart contracts to guarantee accurate payments, procurement, supplier agreements, and automated transactions. Besides, blockchain technology could help improve the governance of shared resources and distribute the proceeds of outer space resource extraction, thanks to the ability to manage funds in a transparent and decentralized fashion, with no reliance on any intermediary authority.Footnote 40
Conclusion
Blockchain technologies are a powerful force of innovation with the potential to bring transformation in existing modes of governance. Yet, to date, most of the innovation facilitated by blockchain technology is driven by a particular set of libertarian narratives. These narratives have inspired a variety of applications in outer space, aimed at replacing sovereign rules with private ordering and market-based dynamics that could allegedly operate without the need for any governmental structure or trusted intermediary. Indeed, given the prohibition of national appropriation of celestial bodies, private ordering has become a popular mechanism to negotiate the allocation and exploitation of celestial resources. Yet, as we discussed in this essay, these applications are limited to the extent that they assume enforcement capabilities that the technology does not afford. Nevertheless, while the crypto-libertarian narrative may be the most noticeable one, blockchain technology has generated other narratives, providing new opportunities to experiment with more inclusive and participative commons-based or trust-based governance models. Those propositions have the potential to contribute to the governance of outer space as a global commons.
Word.
Open access
