ISSI Bern > Forums > Cosmic Footprint, large Scale Space…

Introduction & Bibliography

Introduction  

Humans, as a species, may be on the verge, if not already there, of creating, disturbing, or interacting with entire biospheres, both within and beyond our solar system. Given the diverse range of existing and developing technologies, our moral considerations are expanding, along with our capability to reach and influence unprecedented scales of space and time. With the vastness of our potential physical scope of action comes a corresponding magnitude of potential outcomes, and a heightened responsibility as a species.

A new space age

Humanity’s active interaction with space, beyond observations from Earth, is increasingly expanding due to technological developments. 

Early milestones in this endeavor included the launch of the first satellite, Sputnik 1 in 1957, the first manned Moon mission in 1969, the first intentional extrasolar message in 1976, and the first extrasolar probe Voyager I in 1977.  

Today, a new space age has debuted, marked by extensive private investments and initiatives, more affordable space exploration, miniaturization, and advancements in artificial intelligence. Earth’s orbits are becoming increasingly congested and a new race is ongoing towards the Moon, and Mars.

LEO and space debris: The mediatic tip of the iceberg

A bit over a decade ago, the rate at which satellites were launched into orbit started to rise dramatically. The figures jumped from 210 in 2013, to 600 by 2019, reached 1,200 in 2020, and recently soared to 2,470 in 2022 with a continuing growth to 2,917 in 2023. This is striking and it highlights the challenge of exponentially increasing space debris (Kessler syndrome), with 44,700 objects now tracked by the USSC (Space-Track.org, 2024), and its potential to lockout access of entire orbit ranges (Drmola & Hubik 2018). 

This issue, emblematic of the broader environmental impact of space activities, underscores the urgent need for effective space governance. The proliferation of space debris attracts media attention due to its direct influence on humanity’s daily activities. The appreciation of the gravity of this issue by the media and the public is fortunate, as it serves as a catalyst for raising awareness of broader issues on larger scales. Such broad issues, discussed below, may have significant effects not only on Earth but also on other extraterrestrial environments in the future.

Interacting with an environment, billions of times wider.

Billion kilometers beyond the terrestrial orbits, Humanity’s reach, using automated probes, keeps increasing. In 2006, Huygens landed on Saturn’s icy moon, Titan, and missions such as Stardust, or OSIRIS-REx sample return, demonstrated a capability to interact with every single object in the solar system, including moons, comets, and asteroids, respectively. Some of these environments are large and share similarities with terrestrial environments hosting life. As an example, the oceans on Titan could be 12 to 25 times larger than Earth, comprising some organics necessary for life forms to sustain their metabolism (Jerome & al, 2023). 24 billion km away from Earth, the Voyager probes have passed the Heliosphere, and a total of seven objects are on extrasolar trajectories. In the medium term, initiatives such as NASA DEEP-IN (USCB, 2022) or Breakthrough Starshot (Breakthrough Initiatives, 2016), could even allow this interstellar environment to be reached by interstellar probes.

Beyond the solar system, reaching distances lightyears away, our electromagnetic footprint includes transmissions such as Deep space Network (Derrick, 2023) or 3G communications (Saide & al, 2023). Intentional messages directed to nearby exoplanets such as SONAR CALLING (Sónar Festival,2017), generate an array of disagreements and moral objections (Billingham & Benford, 2011, Vakoch, 2016, Zaitsev, 2008, Buchanan, 2016, SETI@home, 2023, Korbitz 2014), and could trigger a response over decades. Within the volume accessible to our signaling power (Lubin, Philip, 2016, Clark & Cahoy, 2018), lies a number of stellar systems, some including identified exoplanets, within the habitable zone of their stars (Wang & al, 2017, Mallonn & al, 2022, Normier, A, 2020).

Cosmic footprint

In the expanding environment we interact with, way beyond Earth, we define humanity’s cosmic footprint as the effects of past, present and putative future human activities.

Human activity leaves a diverse array of materials and impacts across space, including spacecraft, fragments thereof, and debris. This includes disposable components like boosters and parachutes, various kinds of waste, toxic substances, and materials used for power generation such as nuclear sources, radiothermal generators, batteries, combustible residuals, and explosive elements found in tanks and engines. Additionally, spacecraft discharge items for propulsion or control, including exhaust emissions, plume deposits, chemical releases, despin weights, and radiation. The technological footprint also extends to electronics, computers, data, and potentially, in the near future, artificial intelligences. Biological materials, whether intentional samples or accidental stowaways, traverse space aboard these vessels. Moreover, electromagnetic signals emanate from both terrestrial origins and spacecraft.

The effects of human presence in space go beyond mere objects. The modifications of landscapes and celestial bodies can be significant. These impacts can include, the displacement of dust by engine backwash, physico-chemical modifications following the introduction of new chemical species, the creation of impact craters, or changes induced by heat, radiation, laser interactions, drilling, vehicle tracks, the actions of biological agents, including literal human footprints.

Human endeavors also have the potential to influence the celestial dynamics of small bodies in space, as evidenced by the DART experiment. These interventions can alter the course of these bodies through direct impacts, as well as theoretically through flyby and gravity assist maneuvers, showcasing the extensive and varied footprint humanity leaves in its exploration and use of space.

Some of these effects carry the potential for large-scale, irreversible consequences, either for good or bad, and thus deserve special attention. For example, an asteroid redirection could lead to or prevent a cataclysmic event on a planet (Fenucci, & Carbognani, 2024). Biological contamination could lead to the destruction, modification or creation of a new biosphere. Our electromagnetic footprint could be picked up by an eavesdropping extraterrestrial intelligence.

Rationale 

The possibility of physical-chemical modifications of celestial bodies, biological cross contamination, as well as the question of our possible signalisation to extraterrestrial civilizations, raise questions some of which relate to consequences at scales unprecedented in history. These potentially irreversible consequences may reach scales well beyond the ones of our own biosphere, and  supersede us, beyond the duration of our species. What legacy do we want to leave to future generations? Will we seed the cosmos with terrestrial lifeforms,  and if so how? Will we signal the position of Earth and message the stars? The questions arise regarding the responsibilities involved and the governance effort required to handle them in a representative and accountable manner. Being morally tooled, we have the opportunity to explore those questions, and might have the responsibility to do so.

Humans may be a blink by the universe scales. Still, today, a single mistake in planetary protection measures may lead to the creation or contamination of entire pristine geospheres or likely biospheres. Still, a single successful signal, picked up by some extraterrestrial intelligence could be a game changer, not only for our species, but for all involved environments. When the mismanagement of our new power, today, may outlast us by billions of years, and have an impact at galactic scales, time has come to realize that these seemingly impossible facts are coming within scope, and to cope with our responsibilities.

Existing efforts to address our cosmic footprint

The responsibility of humankind in preserving the environment of celestial bodies has been considered since the early stages of space exploration, as reflected in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 on preventing harmful contamination (United Nations, 1967). Presently, ongoing endeavors are separated in two main categories: 

Regarding the specific protection of scientific value, COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection is providing proactive anticipatory recommendations (COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection, 2021).

Where space is used beyond the efforts of scientific research, such as current uses of the terrestrial orbits, the efforts are mainly reactionary, focusing on the mitigation of damages that have already happened, as with the development of space debris removal technologies.

As humanity sets its sights on the Moon and Mars, as private missions are targeting deep space and as our electromagnetic footprint is reaching the nearby stars, concerns arise regarding anticipatory ethical concerns, governance frameworks, representativity and accountability towards current and future generations.

Large scales, and current decisions and actions

The effort of the large-scale space ethics research group, aimed to initiate a discussion on the ethical questions arising from humanity’s expanding interactions with space at the large scales, in a proactive and anticipatory approach. It decided on the necessity for a forum focused on the possible implementation of initiatives to establish a comprehensive framework for identifying and addressing these issues.

Embracing the entire scope of ethical questions related to the historical, present, and potential future cosmic footprint, is a very large program, leading to the need of a clear prioritization. Taking advantage of the unique structure of the group and of a practical capability of action beyond the sole interest in research, the decision has been made to reduce the scope towards an action-based prioritization. 

As a consequence the scope has been reduced to : 

“the urgent set of questions that relate to decisions and actions, which we, humans, may take today or in the near future, and which bear the potential to have consequences at or beyond the scales of our and likely further extraterrestrial biospheres”.

Bibliography  

  1. Barney, B. L., Pratt, S. N., & Austin, D. E. (2016). Survivability of bare, individual Bacillus subtilis spores to high-velocity surface impact: Implications for microbial transfer through space. Planetary and Space Science, 125, 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2016.02.010
  2. Billingham, J., & Benford, J. (2011, February 9). Costs and Difficulties of Large-Scale ‘Messaging’, and the Need for International Debate on Potential Risks. JBIS – Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 67.
  3. Breakthrough Initiatives. (2016). Breakthrough Starshot: A $100 million research and engineering program aiming to demonstrate proof of concept for light-propelled spacecraft that could fly at 20 percent of light speed.Retrieved from https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/initiative/3
  4. Buchanan, M. (2016, August). Searching for trouble?. Nature Physics, 12, 720. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3852
  5. Church, G. [Breakthrough]. (2021, April 13). Day 2: Breakthrough Discuss 2021: Alpha Centauri System: A Beckoning Neighbor [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTFx5-AMmTk&t=319s
  6. Clark, J. R., & Cahoy, K. (2018, November 5). Optical Detection of Lasers with Near-term Technology at Interstellar Distances. The Astrophysical Journal, 867(2), 97. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aae380
  7. COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection. (2021, June 3). COSPAR Policy on Planetary Protection. Prepared by the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection and approved by the COSPAR Bureau on 3 June 2021. Retrieved from https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/assets/uploads/2021/07/PPPolicy_2021_3-June.pdf
  8. Coustenis, A., Hedman, N., Doran, P. T., Al Shehhi, O., Ammanito, E., et al. (2023). Planetary protection: Updates and challenges for a sustainable space exploration. Acta Astronautica, 210, 446-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2023.02.035
  9. De Souza, T. A. J., & Pereira, T. C. (2019). Caenorhabditis elegans tolerates hyperaccelerations up to 400,000 x g. Astrobiology, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2017.1802
  10. Deguchi, S., Shimoshige, H., Tsudome, M., Horikoshi, K., & others. (2011). Microbial growth at hyperaccelerations up to 403,627 × g. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7997-8002. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018027108
  11. Derrick, R., & Isaacson, H. (2023). The Breakthrough Listen Search for Intelligent Life: Nearby Stars’ Close Encounters with the Brightest Earth Transmissions. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 135(1045), 034201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/acc1a1
  12. Drmola, J., & Hubik, T. (2018). Kessler Syndrome: System Dynamics Model. Space Policy, 44–45, 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2018.03.003
  13. Fenucci, M., & Carbognani, A. (2024). Long-term orbital evolution of Dimorphos boulders and implications on the origin of meteorites. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 528(4), 6660–6665. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae464
  14. Glein, C. R., & Zolotov, M. Y. (2020). Hydrogen, Hydrocarbons, and Habitability Across the Solar System. Elements, 16(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.2138/gselements.16.1.47
  15. Gros, C. (2016). Developing ecospheres on transiently habitable planets: the genesis project. Astrophysics and Space Science, 361, 324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-016-2911-0
  16. Gros, C. (2019). Why planetary and exoplanetary protection differ: The case of long duration genesis missions to habitable but sterile M-dwarf oxygen planets. Acta Astronautica, 157, 263-267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.01.005.
  17. Hendrix, A. R., Hurford, T. A., Barge, L. M., Bland, M. T., Bowman, J. S., Brinckerhoff, W., Buratti, B. J., … & Vance, S. D. (2019). The NASA roadmap to ocean worlds. Astrobiology, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/ast.2018.1955
  18. Holcomb, J. A., Mandel, R. D., & Wegmann, K. W. (2024). The case for a lunar anthropocene. Nature Geoscience, 17, 2-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01347-4
  19. Jerome, C. A., Kim, H.-J., Mojzsis, S. J., Benner, S. A., & Biondi, E. (2023). Catalytic Synthesis of Polyribonucleic Acid on Prebiotic Rock Glasses. Astrobiology https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2023.0055
  20. Kirkpatrick, J. B., Walsh, E. A., & D’Hondt, S. (2016). Fossil DNA persistence and decay in marine sediment over hundred-thousand-year to million-year time scales. Geology, 44(8), 615-618. https://doi.org/10.1130/G37933.1
  21. Korbitz A., Toward understanding the active SETI debate: Insights from risk communication and perception, Acta Astronautica, 105, 2, 517-520, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.07.005.
  22. Lantin, S., Mendell, S., Akkad, G., Cohen, A. N., Apicella, X., McCoy, E., Beltran-Pardo, E., Waltemathe, M., Srinivasan, P., Joshi, P. M., Rothman, J. H., & Lubin, P. (2022). Interstellar space biology via Project Starlight. Acta Astronautica, 190, 261-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.10.009
  23. Lubin, P. (2016, September 19). Implications of directed energy for SETI. In Proceedings of SPIE Optical Engineering + Applications (Vol. 9981, 99810H). SPIE. Event held in San Diego, California, United States. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2238212
  24. Mallonn, M., Poppenhaeger, K., Granzer, T., Weber, M., & Strassmeier, K. G. (2022, January 19). Detection capability of ground-based meter-sized telescopes for shallow exoplanet transits. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 657, A102. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202140599
  25. Mitri, G., Postberg, F., Soderblom, J. M., Wurz, P., Tortora, P., Abel, B., Barnes, J. W., Berga, M., Carrasco, N., Coustenis, A., de Vera, J. P. P., D’Ottavio, A., Ferri, F., Hayes, A. G., Hayne, P. O., Hillier, J. K., Kempf, S., Lebreton, J.-P., Lorenz, R. D., Martelli, A., … & Zannoni, M. (2017). Explorer of Enceladus and Titan (E2T): Investigating ocean worlds’ evolution and habitability in the solar system. Planetary and Space Science, 155, Article 1016/j.pss.2017.11.001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2017.11.001
  26. Morioka, M. (2021). What Is Antinatalism?: Definition, History, and Categories. The Review of Life Studies, 12, 1-39. https://philpapers.org/rec/MORWIA-13
  27. Morono, Y., Ito, M., Hoshino, T., Terada, T., Hori, T., Ikehara, M., D’Hondt, S., & Inagaki, F. (2020). Aerobic microbial life persists in oxic marine sediment as old as 101.5 million years. Nature Communications, 11, Article 3626. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17330-1
  28. Normier, A. (2020). Kingmakers: Life’s Gateway to the Stars. Essay submitted in the framework of: MASTER II PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY PARIS – SORBONNE. Paris-Sorbonne University, UFR de Philosophie – Master II Philosophy of Science. https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1CnHtubbAexo7_TmRJiSjE6c78WVEm9oS
  29. Preston, L. J., & Dartnell, L. R. (2014). Planetary habitability: lessons learned from terrestrial analogues. International Journal of Astrobiology, 13(1), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1473550413000396
  30. Saide, R. C., Garrett, M. A., & Heeralall-Issur, N. (2023). Simulation of the Earth’s radio-leakage from mobile towers as seen from selected nearby stellar systems. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522(2), 2393-2402. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad378
  31. SETI@home. (2023). Statement Regarding METI/Active SETI. Retrieved from
  32. Shapiro, R., & Schulze-Makuch, D. (2009). The search for alien life in our solar system: Strategies and priorities. Astrobiology, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2008.028 1
  33. Shipley, S. T., Metzger, P. T., & Lane, J. E. (2015). Lunar cold trap contamination by landing vehicles. In Proceedings of the Earth and Space. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479179.018  
  34. Sivula, O. (2022). The Cosmic Significance of Directed Panspermia: Should Humanity Spread Life to Other Solar Systems? Utilitas, 34(2), 178-194. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095382082100042X
  35. Sónar Festival. (2017). Sónar Calling GJ273b: Sending Music to Luyten’s Star b. Retrieved from https://www.sonarcalling.com/en/
  36. Space-Track.org. (2024). Retrieved from https://www.space-track.org/auth/login
  37. Taylor, C. (2019, August 8). ‘I’m the first space pirate!’ How tardigrades were secretly smuggled to the moon. Science > Space. [URL needed]
  38. Thiel, C. S., Tauber, S., Schütte, A., Schmitz, B., Nuesse, H., Moeller, R., & Ullrich, O. (2014). Functional activity of plasmid DNA after entry into the atmosphere of Earth investigated by a new biomarker stability assay for ballistic spaceflight experiments. PLOS ONE, 10(11), Article e0112979. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112979
  39. Tomasik, B. (2014, June 12). Space colonization and animal ethics [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yROxal8jQZM&t=3s
  40. Tosi, F., Mura, A., Cofano, A., et al. (2024). Salts and organics on Ganymede’s surface observed by the JIRAM spectrometer onboard Juno. Nature Astronomy, 8, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-023-02107-5
  41. United Nations. (1967). Outer Space Treaty.Retrieved from : https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/
  42. United Nations. (1976). Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space. Retrieved from https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/
  43. University of California, Santa Barbara – Experimental Cosmology Group. (2022). Starlight: Directed Energy Propulsion for Interstellar Exploration. UCSB Deep Space. Retrieved from https://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/projects/starlight
  44. Vakoch, D. A. (2016, October). In defence of METI. Nature Physics, 12, 890. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3897
  45. Vakoch, D. A. (2017). Hawking’s fear of an alien invasion may explain the Fermi Paradox. Theology and Science, 15(2), 134-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1299380
  46. Vance, S. D., Panning, M. P., Stähler, S., Cammarano, F., Bills, B. G., Tobie, G., Kamata, S., Kedar, S., Sotin, C., … & [additional authors]. (2017). Geophysical investigations of habitability in ice-covered ocean worlds. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 122. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JE005341
  47. Wang, J., Mawet, D., Ruane, G., Hu, R., & Benneke, B. (2017, March 30). Observing Exoplanets with High Dispersion Coronagraphy. I. The Scientific Potential of Current and Next-generation Large Ground and Space Telescopes. The Astronomical Journal, 153(4), 183. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-3881/aa6474
  48. Werner, D., & Klaczynska, M. (2023). Stand up, Space Greta. Space News. Retrieved from https://spacenews.com/stand-up-space-greta/
  49. Zaccaria, T., de Jonge, M. I., Domínguez-Andrés, J., Netea, M. G., Beblo-Vranesevic, K., & Rettberg, P. (2024). Survival of environment-derived opportunistic bacterial pathogens to Martian conditions: Is there a concern for human missions to Mars? Astrobiology, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2023.0057
  50. Zaitsev, A. L. (2008, April). Detection Probability of Terrestrial Radio Signals by a Hostile Super-civilization. Journal of Radio Electronics.Available online : http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.2754

 

Forum hosted by ISSI,  by the Research group on large scale space ethics : https://www.spaceethics.org