Public discourse on space policy has long been dominated by two themes: national security and economic regulation. These priorities, while critical, leave significant gaps in addressing how space activities affect less powerful participants—particularly future space workers and communities impacted by the industry’s expansion.
Since the launch of Sputnik in 1957, space technology has been intertwined with military capability. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit, yet satellites remain integral to communications, navigation, surveillance, and missile detection. The growing perception of space as a warfighting domain prompted the United States to establish the Space Force in 2019, reorganizing the Air Force Space Command into a separate military branch. Internationally, momentum toward responsible security practices is evident; the United Kingdom and South Korea recently joined a U.S.-led pledge to refrain from anti-satellite missile testing.
Parallel to security concerns, the commercial space sector has surged. Companies are developing technologies for space mining, debris removal, reusable launch systems, and orbital habitats. Policymakers have leaned toward enabling this growth through frameworks like the U.S. Space Act of 2015 and the Artemis Accords, which interpret space property law to encourage commercial exploitation. Advocates of “permissionless innovation” argue that minimal regulation is essential to avoid stifling industry momentum.
However, the focus on security and commerce overlooks pressing issues such as labor rights in extraterrestrial workplaces. Historically, astronauts have been government employees, but private spaceflight has introduced paying passengers and crews employed by commercial operators. The Inspiration4 mission in 2021 marked the first orbital flight crewed entirely by private citizens. Looking ahead, semi-permanent habitats—whether in orbit or on Mars—could host employees living and working in space for extended periods.
The hazards of space as a workplace are profound. Beyond the risk of accidents, survival depends entirely on artificial habitats providing air, water, food, radiation shielding, and temperature control. Workers will rely on employer-controlled infrastructure for life support and for transportation back to Earth, creating an inherent imbalance in negotiating conditions and pay. The remoteness of these workplaces from terrestrial regulators compounds the difficulty of enforcing labor protections. The Outer Space Treaty requires “authorization and continuing supervision” of private activities, but the scope of such supervision remains contested. Calls to minimize regulation for innovation risk leaving loopholes that could enable exploitation.
Equity in the distribution of space’s benefits and burdens is another neglected dimension. The Treaty’s principle that exploration should benefit all nations contrasts with current resource allocation practices. Orbital slots for satellites are assigned by the International Telecommunications Union on a first-come, first-served basis, favoring early-launch nations. The 1976 Bogota Declaration, in which seven equatorial countries claimed sovereignty over geostationary orbital segments above their territories, was dismissed under the Treaty’s non-appropriation rule, yet it underscored disparities between ideals and reality.
Communities on Earth often bear the costs of space activity. In Boca Chica, Texas, residents have challenged SpaceX’s closure of public beaches near its Starbase facility, citing environmental impacts. In Brazil’s Alcântara region, predominantly inhabited by descendants of enslaved Africans, displacement is planned to accommodate a launch site for U.S. use. Globally, mega-constellations like Starlink promise expanded internet access, but high costs limit availability for much of the population. Meanwhile, the proliferation of satellites increases collision risks and disrupts astronomical observations, prompting calls for environmental regulation of low Earth orbit.
Addressing these gaps requires broadening participation in policy discussions. Affected populations—rural communities with limited connectivity, cultural groups reliant on the night sky, or residents near launch sites—should have a voice alongside industry and scientific stakeholders. Expertise from terrestrial policy domains is equally valuable. Labor protections developed for hazardous industries, and environmental regulations from mining or heavy manufacturing, can inform frameworks for space.
By integrating lessons from Earth-bound policymaking and ensuring representation for those most vulnerable to the impacts of space activity, the trajectory of human expansion beyond Earth can be steered toward a more equitable and sustainable future.