Celestial Rivalries: Navigating the New Space Race Among Global Powers (Part I)

In an increasingly multipolar world, the dimensions of competition and warfare are going to become more space-centric - what does it mean for Earth?

With the advent of technological advancement, geopolitics will now extend deeper into space with profound consequences for Earth. The final frontier is the next iteration in the evolution of our global political paradigm. This report was inspired by Tim Marshall’s book, The Future of Geography. Direct citations will be in quotes.

This report will be broken into three parts. The first will focus on the unique nature and dynamics of the Moon and satellites. The next installment will focus on the regulations and accords shaping future space relations. And the third will be on military developments in the final frontier and what it means for Earth’s security.

Satellites

Satellites orbiting our planet not only have commercial value like GPS - which has boosted the US economy by $1.4 trillion, with most of the growth coming in the last decade - but military applications as well. They are used to communicate with missile systems, and enhance cross-continental communication, with “modern high-end military satellite resolution thought to go down as far as 0.49 feet (or 6 inches)”.

Consequently, acquiring celestial/cosmic territory will have a commensurate level of urgency and strategic value as an equally important portion of land down on Earth. For this reason, looking at the geopolitics of space is not a head-in-the-clouds (literally) form of analytical speculation but a prescient warning of what may come.

In large part due to the US-China rivalry, our increasingly fragmented and multipolar world is flirting with conflict and war. Political Scientist Graham Allison, who popularized the term Thucydides Trap, found that in twelve of sixteen cases where a rising power threatened to displace an existing one, war followed.

Due to the geo-strategic value of space, more nations will develop and deploy atmosphere-breaking machinery to expand the domain of their influence. However, that will also mean that the risk of a cosmic accident is more probable, and will likely not remain suspended in space but will influence terra-political relations.

The amount of space debris orbiting Earth is expected to climb significantly, and collisions of multi-million dollar equipment could cascade into geopolitical confrontations. But policymakers and military strategists are already looking past our immediate atmosphere and at the Moon, the first celestial body that is getting entangled in international affairs…again.

Lunatic…tick…tick…

It was only a matter of time until technology had advanced enough for the Moon to re-enter geopolitical relevancy. Much like man-made satellites, the rocky one orbiting our Earth also holds both commercial and military strategic value. But the exact place on the Moon matters, for not all surfaces are made equal.

The equator - so to speak - is a prime location for energy extraction. That regional belt is most exposed to the Sun’s rays and therefore are more likely have concentrated deposits of helium-3. The Moon has no atmosphere, which means solar winds carrying helium-3 have accumulated over billions of years, saturating the surface.

However, by the same token, the lack of atmosphere means levels of radiation are x200 times higher than on Earth’s surface. “Fortunately, regolith, the Moon’s topsoil, has a high resistance to solar radiation and a low thermal conductivity, which means it can be used as rough stucco for a Moon base”.

There is also the issue of extreme thermal fluctuations on the Moon, and are a major hurdle for equipment design. Polar regions, while extremely cold, experience far less dramatic fluctuations compared to the helium-3 belt. This stability makes the poles potentially prime locations for settlements, particularly areas with extended sunlight.

The Moon's permanently shadowed polar regions boast the coldest temperatures in our solar system at -396°F, colder than Pluto. These dark craters harbor a potential resource: ice deposits containing hydrogen and oxygen, key ingredients for rocket fuel. Estimates suggest a massive 1.1 billion tons of ice await at each lunar pole.

As for getting there, both the US and China are making moves.

In 2023, Djibouti signed a memorandum of understanding with Beijing to build a spaceport there. The Earth spins on its axis, and the fastest rotational speed is at the equator, registering at around 1670 kilometers per hour (1040 mph).

“While launching from anywhere is possible, equatorial sites offer a significant advantage in terms of fuel efficiency and payload capacity”. Furthermore, Djibouti also hold major geopolitical significance:

• Strategic Location: It sits at the chokepoint of the Red Sea, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Over 10% of global trade funnels through here.

• Gateway to Africa: Djibouti serves as a crucial access point for trade and resources in East Africa.

• Stable Anchor: Unlike its turbulent neighbors, Djibouti offers a reliable launchpad for military operations, hence the presence of US, French, Chinese, and Japanese bases.

Focusing on the physics of the latter: when a rocket launches eastward from the equator, it essentially gets a free piggyback ride on the faster rotational speed. This adds to the velocity the rocket needs to achieve orbit, reducing the fuel needed or allowing for a heavier payload.

And then when on the Moon, with sufficient development, it could act as a cosmic springboard to propel spacecrafts to other celestial bodies. As Tim Marshall writes: “Launching a rocket from the Moon requires a fraction of the fuel needed to escape Earth’s gravity, and so once the infrastructure is in place an Earth-Moon trip would not need to carry enough fuel for the return journey if there are supplies on the “orbiting garage.

The financial model doesn’t make much sense now considering how much is still theory and the (literal) astronomical costs, but modern geopolitical trends means security taking precedence extends to the stars. Costs have come down since the 1960s: NASA’s annual expenditure hit 4% of the federal budget, today its 0.5%. NASA is also using private companies like Space X, which have innovated and cut the cost of rocket launches and made space-faring activities more financial feasible.

However, the costs are still out of this world - literally. NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) launch costs are estimated at approximately $4.1 billion per launch. This doesn’t include resources necessary for sustaining life on the Moon (water, food). Accounting on the actual cost of maintaining a space station is still unclear.

Fundamentally, “the prizes of the Moon’s potential riches, and the ability to use it as a gravitational point of deploy military satellites that would be difficult for competitors to detect”.

On the Moon, some policymakers have pushed for so-called “safety zones” which is nothing more than a euphemism for spheres of influence. On Earth, we have terra-specific laws that apply in international relations. However, in a multipolar world, finding and sticking to a consensus with competing states is proving difficult.

So what regulations or accords have been agreed upon and by whom? How will states reconcile disputes over sovereign-less territory involving multinational disagreements? What are the risks of confrontation and conflict? All these questions and more will be answered in the week’s report on Monday, April 1.