Ethics and Equity in the Emerging Space Economy

Written by: Emma Herzog

Introduction

As the space economy accelerates into the commercial frontier, once the exclusive domain of the Cold War geopolitics and scientific discovery, it is now increasingly defined by private investment, technological innovation, and profit-driven ambitions. Companies like SpaceX and Blue Origen have made space more technologically accessible, drastically lowering launch costs and expanding the scope of in-orbit activity. However, accessibility is not equity. Accessibility refers to the ease with which stakeholders – whether governments, institutions, or individuals – can enter and participate in the space economy. Equity, on the other hand, concerns the fair distribution of benefits, decision-making power, and representation across geographic, cultural, economic, and demographic lines.

The potential for economic gain in orbit threatens to eclipse the ethical imperatives of inclusion, transparency, and global benefit. As we stand on the precipice of a new era of exploration, it is essential that the development of the space economy reflects our shared values of ethical governance, public access, and social responsibility. Without such a framework, the final frontier may merely replicate the inequities of terrestrial economics.

The Mirage of Accessibility: Who Really Benefits from Space Commercialization?

While private enterprises have undeniably lowered the financial barriers to orbit – for instance, SpaceX has reduced the cost of sending a kilogram to Low Earth Orbit by nearly 90% since the Space Shuttle era (“Navigating the Challenges of Space”) – these advancements have not translated into equitable inclusion. Accessibility often refers to the technical feasibility or cost-efficiency, but equity involves who controls, benefits from, and governs these advancements.  

Current beneficiaries of the space economy remain primarily in the Global North, dominated by private investors, elite engineers, and governments with established aerospace capabilities. For example, while Elon Musk's Starlink provides satellite internet in underserved areas, its operations and profits remain concentrated in the United States and its investors.

The educational and professional prerequisites to enter this field are similarly exclusive. STEM-heavy pathways filter out individuals from communities lacking adequate access to advanced education. Disabled personals and culturally marginalized groups face structural barriers due to a lack of inclusive design in both educational systems and technological infrastructure. The average global citizen is relegated to a passive role, relying on satellite services and GPS for weather updates without a voice in how these systems are governed.

The European Commission’s Space Possibilities for Our Grandchildren report underscores this disparity, noting that Earth-based systems increasingly depend on space infrastructure while governance remains concentrated in private, Northern Hemisphere entities by a few, not inclusive development.

Legal Grey Zones and Ethical Black Holes: Navigating the Space Divide

The commercialization of space has outpaced legal frameworks. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 remains the foundational document of space law, declaring space the "province of all mankind," but it is virtually silent on private ownership. This leaves room for exploitative behavior under the guise of legality. Companies like Moon Express and Planetary Resources aim to mine celestial bodies for rare minerals. While these plans remain largely conceptual, they raise urgent questions: Who owns extracted resources? What responsibilities do companies have with Earth-based stakeholders? And how can environmental harm—whether from debris, emissions, or celestial disruption—be prevented?

Without updated legal instruments, dominant spacefaring nations and corporations could monopolize orbital and lunar resources. The allocation of radio frequencies (RF spectrum) and orbital slots remains concentrated – over 90% of registered satellite communications are controlled by just six nations as of 2023 ("The Space Economy: Navigating the Challenges").

Orbital debris also represents a growing danger. Kessler Syndrome, a cascade of collisions, could make portions of Low Earth Orbit unusable (the "Kessler Syndrome"). Without strong global regulation, we may see increased geopolitical tensions over lunar landing zones or strategic orbits, exacerbating rather than alleviating existing global inequalities.

Cultural and Religious Dimensions: Diverse Perspectives on Space Exploration

While economic and legal concerns dominate policy discourse, the ethical legitimacy of space exploration also hinges on cultural and spiritual considerations. For many Indigenous communities, the stars are not just navigational tools but sacred entities. The explosion of satellite constellations like Starlink has increased light pollution, disrupting traditional skywatching. D. W. Hamacher, a physics author at Cornel, describes this as a form of "cultural genocide" through light pollution (“Whitening the Sky”).

Religious communities bring additional complexity. The Catholic Church generally supports space exploration but has raised ethical objections to some future technologies, such as artificial wombs or transhumanist enhancements, to accompany long-duration space travel ("Exploring Space: Ethical Dilemmas for Catholicism"). In Islam, scholars debate the permissibility of prayer in orbit, fasting, and pilgrimage obligations as humans leave Earth’s 24-hour cycle ("Religion in Space").

A pluralistic framework for the space economy must consider these worldviews. Consultation with Indigenous communities before deploying satellite mega-constellations should be mandatory. Religious accommodations, such as adjusted rituals for Muslim or Hindu astronauts, must be proactively integrated into space mission planning. A purely technocratic model risks marginalizing entire worldviews in the pursuit of scientific progress.

A Just and Inclusive Model: Public-Private Partnerships and Circular Frameworks

To address the ethical shortcomings of the current trajectory, a just space economy should prioritize public-private collaboration, inclusive policymaking, and reinvestment strategies. Public-Private Research and Development Partnerships (PPRDPs) offer a scalable model for innovation that includes both economic and ethical considerations.

For instance, Stanford’s Emerging Technology Review proposes smart contracts and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) as tools for equitable governance ("Navigating the Challenges of Space"). Such structures could allocate bandwidth in the RF spectrum, manage debris through shared standards, and fund international R&D hubs that allow scientists from the Global South to participate in space missions.

Environmental justice must also be integral. While space mining may relieve Earth’s ecosystems by extracting resources like platinum and cobalt from asteroids, it must be environmentally responsible and socially equitable. ("Space Possibilities for Our Grandchildren") This includes transparency in supply chains, safe disposal practices, and fair economic returns to the nations and communities affected by Earth-side consequences.

A circular economic model, where space-derived profits are reinvested into global health, education, and climate resilience, could realign the purpose of space from conquest to stewardship. Rather than perpetuating extractive and extraterrestrial economies, a circulate approach views the benefits of space as resources to be cycled back into Earth’s most urgent human and ecological needs. This includes using satellite technology to improve precision agriculture in food-insecure regions, enhancing climate monitoring systems to support mitigation and adaptation strategies, and finding equitable access to STEM education across underrepresented communities globally.

Such a model reframes space not as a disconnected or elitist domain, but as an integrated extension of Earth’s ecosystem – an environment whose exploitation must be balanced with accountability. Reinvestment can help offset the environmental costs of rocket launches, emission, and orbital debris, while also ensuring that developing nations and marginalized communities share in the economic and scientific dividends of space progress. Ultimately, treating space as a shared commons rather than a commercial free-for-all enables the creation of an ethical paradigm grounded in sustainability, reciprocity, and global equity. This shift could transform the trajectory of space exploration from a race for dominance into a cooperative venture for planetary well-being.

Conclusion

The rapid commercialization of space marks a defining shift in how humanity engages with the cosmos, but this shift is not inherently neutral or equitable. If left unchecked, the benefits of space exploration will be disproportionately captured by powerful corporations and wealthy nations, deepening existing global inequalities and ecological risks. From legal ambiguities and technological gatekeeping to cultural marginalization and environmental oversight, the space economy today reflects many of the same ethical dilemmas found in terrestrial development.

However, the trajectory is not fixed. Through deliberate governance, inclusive policymaking, and ethical innovation, there remains an opportunity to shape the space economy into a more just and sustainable system. Incorporating cultural pluralism, environmental stewardship, and redistributive economic frameworks is not merely aspirational – it is essential if space is to serve as a domain for collective progress rather than private gain.

What we build beyond earth will inevitably reflect the values we uphold on it. Embedding equity, accountability, and inclusion into the infrastructure of space exploration ensures that its benefits extend beyond national borders or corporate bottom lines. It is not enough to reach the stars – we must also determine who gets to come along, and on what terms.

Works Cited

"Exploring Space: Ethical Dilemmas for Catholicism." *Frontiers in Space Technologies*, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/space-technologies/articles/10.3389/frspt.2025.1539106/full.

Hamacher, Duane W., et al. “Whitening the Sky: Light Pollution as a Form of Cultural Genocide.” *arXiv*, 2020, https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.11527.

FutureTimeline.net. "Cost of Launching Payload to Low Earth Orbit, 1980–2100." Future Timeline, https://futuretimeline.net/data-trends/6.htm. Accessed 17 July 2025.

"Religion in Space." *Wikipedia*, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_space.

"Space Exploration and Economic Growth: New Issues and Horizons." *PNAS*, 2023, https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2221341120.

"Space Possibilities for Our Grandchildren." *Publications Office of the European Union*, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/8c11b92b-95ac-11ef-a130-01aa75ed71a1.

"The Future of Space: Economic Opportunities and Challenges." *New Space Economy*, 2 Nov. 2024, https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/11/02/the-future-of-space-economic-opportunities-and-challenges/.

"The Space Economy: Navigating the Challenges of a New Frontier." *New Space Economy*, 26 Feb. 2024, https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/02/26/the-space-economy-navigating-the-challenges-of-a-new-frontier/.

NASA Orbital Debris Program Office. “Distribution of Debris in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit.” NASA Orbital Debris Photo Gallery, https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photo-gallery/. Accessed 17 July 2025.

"Navigating the Challenges of Space: Balancing Progress and Preservation for Future Generations." *Stanford Emerging Technology Review*, https://setr.stanford.edu/news/navigating-challenges-space-balancing-progress-and-preservation-future-generations.