In particular, the simultaneous drop in launch costs, benefits of first-mover status in an expanding market, and pressures to commercialize may promote quasi-territorial claims by private actors that bypass the Outer Space Treaty’s restrictions against state sovereignty. Moreover, opportunistic states may exploit affordable access to conduct new activities where they were previously held back by high costs some of those activities may be legally under-defined and require concerted efforts at definition, clarification, and standardization. As reusable vehicles increase the number of actors who can access space, the broader range of activities they conduct may not be addressed fully by existing space law. Although the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) and the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) have continuously sought to keep space law relevant and mediate negotiations, the rapid expansion of commercial space activities poses an unprecedented challenge. Yet those measures are targeted primarily at state actors, and spacefaring states in particular. The Outer Space Treaty, for instance, prohibited territorial expansionism in space and the placement of weapons of mass destruction in orbit, while the Rescue Agreement and the Space Liability Convention established clear guidelines for responsible behavior in space. Since the height of the “space race,” the international community has relied on a narrow range of treaties to organize and regulate space activities. Second, reusable launch vehicles complicate the global governance of space activities. The same is true in Singapore, where the start-up Equatorial Space Systems touts a vision of “commodify rocket propulsion using low-cost, safe, and eco-friendly technologies.” Japan has also been a leader in the region, with its national space agency working with private industry to provide venture funding for commercialization efforts and seeking to leverage its history of industrial strength to become “one of the world’s new-space industry hubs.” Similarly, Israel’s space agency is providing funding for commercial start-ups, citing commercial space innovation as a way to “enhance Israel’s international status.” By out-innovating their larger peers, these and other countries aim to carve out regional niches and distinguish themselves as viable partners in the global commercial space sector. India is emulating the US when it comes to commercialization and public-private partnerships, with start-ups able to launch small satellites into orbit at the Indian Space Research Organization’s Satish Dhawan Space Center. In addition to great powers like the U.S., China, and Russia, rising powers also see an opportunity to establish themselves amid the global space boom. Since both Russia and China have long favored the public option and state-owned enterprises, their efforts to cultivate commercial space firms is notable-even if the extent to which they are able to break into the international launch market remains far from clear. However, the success of this program has been mixed, with key players inside and outside of the Russian government hesitant to establish a self-sustaining private sector. Similarly, Russia has also sought to expand its array of public-private partnerships, particularly under the auspices of the Skolkovo Foundation’s activities aimed at catalyzing the emergence of a domestic commercial space industry. China in particular has begun reform of its regulations of space privatization and invested in a broad array of commercial options, showing increasing signs of moving beyond the dominance of state-owned enterprises in favor of private companies, start-ups, and state partnerships with both.
Major geopolitical competitors such as China (Long March 8, Pallas-1, Hyperbola-2) and Russia (Soyuz-7/Amur) are actively developing their own reusable launch vehicles. interest in continued space dominance has not gone unnoticed or unanswered.
0 kommentar(er)
