Hitting the Books: Why lawyers will be essential to tomorrow’s orbital economy

The skies overhead could soon be filled with constellations of commercial space stations occupying low earth orbit while human colonists settle the Moon with an eye on Mars, if today’s robber barons have their way. But this won’t result in the same freewheeling Wild West that we saw in the 19th century, unfortunately, as tomorrow’s interplanetary settlers will be bringing their lawyers with them. 

In their new book, The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are the Future of Exploration, renowned astrophysicist and science editor, Donald Goldsmith, and Martin Rees, the UK’s Astronomer Royal, argue in favor of sending robotic scouts — with their lack of weighty necessities like life support systems — out into the void ahead of human explorers. But what happens after these synthetic astronauts discover an exploitable resource or some rich dork declares himself Emperor of Mars? In the excerpt below, Goldsmith and Rees discuss the challenges facing our emerging exoplanetary legal system.

a heavily pixelated spacesuit on a grey backdrop and the book title above it
Harvard University Press

Excerpted from The End of Astronauts: Why Robots Are the Future of Exploration by Donald Goldsmith and Martin Rees, published by the Harvard University Press. © 2022 by Donald Goldsmith and Martin Rees.

Almost all legal systems have grown organically, the result of long experience that comes from changes in the political, cultural, environmental, and other circumstances of a society. The first sprouts of space law deserve attention from those who may participate in the myriad activities envisioned for the coming decades, as well, perhaps, from those who care to imagine how a Justinian law code could arise in the realm of space.

Those who travel on spacecraft, and to some degree those who will live on another celestial object, occupy situations analogous to those aboard naval vessels, whose laws over precedents to deal with crimes or extreme antisocial behavior. These laws typically assign to a single officer or group of officers the power to judge and to inflict punishment, possibly awaiting review in the event of a return to a higher court. This model seems likely to reappear in the first long-distance journeys within the solar system and in the first settlements on other celestial objects, before the usual structure of court systems for larger societies appears on the scene.

As on Earth, however, most law is civil law, not criminal law. A far greater challenge than dealing with criminal acts lies in formulating an appropriate code of civil law that will apply to disputes, whether national or international, arising from spaceborne activities by nations, corporations, or individuals. For half a century, a small cadre of interested parties have developed the new specialty of “space law,” some of which already has the potential for immediate application. What happens if a piece of space debris launched by a particular country or corporation falls onto an unsuspecting group of people or onto their property? What happens if astronauts from different countries lay claim to parts of the moon or an asteroid? And most important in its potential importance, if not in its likelihood: who will speak for Earth if we should receive a message from another civilization?

Conferences on subjects such as these have generated more interest than answers. Human exploration of the moon brought related topics to more widespread attention and argument. During the 1980s, the United Nations seemed the natural arena in which to hash them out, and those discussions eventually produced the outcomes described in this chapter. Today, one suspects, almost no one knows the documents that the United Nations produced, let alone has plans to support countries that obey the guidelines in those documents.

Our hopes for achieving a rational means to define and limit activities beyond our home planet will require more extensive agreements, plus a means of enforcing them. Non-lawyers who read existing and proposed agreements about the use of space should remain aware that lawyers typically define words relating to specialized situations as “terms of art,” giving them meanings other than those that a plain reading would suggest.

For example, the word “recovery” in normal discourse refers to regaining the value of something that has been lost, such as the lost wages that arise from an injury. In more specialized usage, “resource recovery” refers to the act of recycling material that would otherwise go to waste. In the vocabulary of mining operations, however, “recovery” has nothing to do with losing what was once possessed; instead, it refers to the extraction of ore from the ground or the seabed. The word’s gentle nature contrasts with the more accurate term “exploitation,” which often implies disapproval, though in legal matters it often carries only a neutral meaning. For example, in 1982 the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea established an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to set rules for the large portion of the seabed that lies beyond the jurisdiction of any nation. By now, 168 countries have signed on to the convention, but the United States has not. According to the ISA’s website, its Mining Code “refers to the whole of the comprehensive set of rules, regulations and procedures issued by ISA to regulate prospecting, exploration and exploitation of marine minerals in the international seabed Area.” In mining circles, no one blinks at plans to exploit a particular location by extracting its mineral resources. Discussions of space law, however, tend to avoid the term “exploitation” in favor of “recovery.”

Google tells workers they can relocate ‘without justification’ following Supreme Court decision

Google will allow employees to move between states in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In an email obtained by The Verge, the company’s chief people officer, Fiona Cicconi, said workers could “apply for relocation without justification,” and that those managing the requests would be “aware of the situation.” Cicconi also reminded workers Google’s employee benefits plan covers medical procedures that aren’t available in the state where they live and work.

“This is a profound change for the country that deeply affects so many of us, especially women,” Cicconi says in the email. “Everyone will respond in their own way, whether that’s wanting space and time to process, speaking up, volunteering outside of work, not wanting to discuss it at all, or something else entirely.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as part of its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. According to an analysis published by The New York Times in May, as many as 28 states could either ban or severely restrict access to abortions in the days and weeks ahead. Some states like Texas had so-called trigger laws in place that went into effect immediately following Friday’s decision.

The effects of such a monumental shift in American politics have been felt across tech. Mere hours after the Supreme Court announced its decision, Flo, one of the most widely used period tracking apps, said it would introduce a new “anonymous mode” in response to privacy concerns following the ruling. Some companies like Meta have also reportedly told employees not to openly discuss the ruling.

Update 4:57PM ET: Google confirmed the authenticity of the email and told Engadget it has not changed its relocation policy since the Supreme Court’s ruling.  

NASA picks three companies to develop lunar nuclear power systems

NASA and the Department of Energy have awarded contracts to three companies that are designing concepts to bring nuclear power to the Moon. The agencies will award Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse and IX around $5 million each to fund the design of a fission surface power system, an idea that NASA has been working on for at least 14 years. 

The three companies are being tasked with developing a 40-kilowatt class fission power system that can run for at least 10 years on the lunar surface. NASA hopes to test the system on the Moon as soon as the end of this decade. If the demonstration proves successful, it could lead to nuclear energy powering long-term missions on the Moon and Mars as part of the Artemis program. “Developing these early designs will help us lay the groundwork for powering our long-term human presence on other worlds,” Jim Reuter, associate administrator for NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate, said in a statement.

Under the 12-month contracts, Lockheed Martin will partner with BWXT and Creare. Westinghouse will team up with Aerojet Rocketdyne, while IX (a joint venture of Intuitive Machines and X-Energy) will work with Maxar and Boeing on a proposal.

Lockheed Martin was one of three companies chosen by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency last year to develop nuclear-powered spacecraft. The Defense Department has also sought nuclear propulsion systems for spacecraft.

Pew confirms what we already knew: People like to retweet political hot takes

While it’s no secret that social media shapes our political discourse, a new study by the Pew Research Center reveals to what extent. Nearly one in three tweets posted by American adults are political in nature, according to Pew’s analysis of a sample …

Senate considers ban on data brokers selling health and location info

Politicians are determined to put a stop to brokers who compromise privacy by selling your data. Motherboard has learned Elizabeth Warren and other senators are introducing a bill, the Health and Location Data Protection Act, that would ban brokers from selling or transferring a person’s medical and positional info outside of limited circumstances. The main exceptions would include HIPAA-compliant activities (such as sharing patient records between facilities) and First Amendment-protected speech.

The legislation would also give the Federal Trade Commission $1 billion over the next decade to help fund enforcement. The FTC, state attorneys general and individuals would also have the power to sue and seek injunctions. Bill cosponsors include longtime data privacy advocate Ron Wyden as well as Bernie Sanders, finance committee chair Patty Murray and HELP committee chair Sheldon Whitehouse.

The act comes in response to numerous instances where companies and government bodies violated privacy by purchasing data through brokers. Bounty hunters bought location data from carriers, for instance, while Google banned a company last year for allegedly selling Android location data indiscriminately. Critics have also accused agencies like ICE and the Secret Service of buying location info through brokers to get data that would normally require a warrant. At the same time, lawmakers are worried about access to abortion seekers’ data when the Supreme Court is expected to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This measure could limit anti-abortion politicians and activists hoping to target patients.

Protection bills like this aren’t new. Wyden’s stalled Fourth Amendment is Not for Sale Act would require agencies to obtain warrants for location data. This would represent one of the most sweeping data controls yet if it became law, however, and reflects mounting opposition to companies that profit from trading sensitive content.

Massachusetts court rejects proposed gig worker ballot measure

The New York Timesreports Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a proposed ballot measure that would have enshrined Uber and Lyft’s business model in law. The court said the measure violated the Massachusetts constitution by including two unrelated policy decisions, including one hidden by “obscure language.”

The bulk of the proposed ballot measure outlined limited benefits for rideshare drivers. However, the offending provision would have said that drivers couldn’t be treated as an “employee or agent” of gig-based companies. If voted into law, this might have shielded outfits like Uber or Lyft from liability in the event of a crash or crime — not to mention kneecapping any attempts to reclassify drivers as employees in the state. The unrelated provisions raised concerns that voters might be “confused, misled and deprived” of a real choice, the court wrote in its decision.

Uber, Lyft and their supporters contended that formalizing the gig worker model would have protected flexibility for drivers seeking their own hours. Groups supporting the companies, such as Chamber of Progress, have claimed employee status could cost jobs and income. Critics like AFL-CIO union federation, however, have argued that measures like this create a false dichotomy between flexibility and benefits — they see ballot options like this as attempts to cut employment costs at the expense of laborers.

Uber and Lyft declined to comment. The two spent a total of $17.8 million endorsing the ballot measure, and have had mixed success promoting similar efforts in other states. They got Californians to vote for Proposition 22, a bid to reverse a state law protecting drivers as employees, only to watch as a judge ruled the measure unconstitutional. The companies struck an agreement with Washington State legislators in early 2022, but failed to get much traction in New York State.

Automakers want Congress to drop the EV tax credit cap

The $7,500 federal EV tax credit has been used for several years to entice consumers to make greener car purchasing decisions, but it has expired for some automakers — and they feel the government needs to remove limits on that incentive. Reuters has learned the CEOs of Ford, GM, Stellantis and Toyota sent a letter to congressional leadership asking them to eliminate the sales-based tax credit cap. The move would help counter economic factors and supply shortages that have raised the costs of producing EVs, according to the companies.

The credit currently applies to the first 200,000 cars sold by any given brand. GM and Tesla have already reached the 200,000-unit mark, while both Ford and Toyota could hit the cap this year. This doesn’t affect state-level discounts. The companies hope Congress will replace the unit-based cap with a sunset date that would end the credit once the EV marketplace is “more mature.”

It’s not certain that enough politicians will warm up to the idea. Senator Joe Manchin, for instance, recently questioned the need for extended credits when EV demand regularly outstrips supply. And when the current Senate frequently shoots down bills without clear bipartisan support, any attempt to legislate the credit could fall apart.

The companies have strong motivations to act now, though. Republicans may regain control of one or both sides of Congress during this fall’s midterm elections, and car industry execs are concerned the shift in power could kill chances of extending tax credits. Former President Trump tried to axe the credit in his proposed 2020 budget, and had the support of Republicans — the chances aren’t high that the GOP will back an extension.

The customer tax breaks might not be as necessary as they once were, mind you. GM plans to sell a Chevy Equinox EV around $30,000, while Tesla has long-term plans for a $25,000 car. Although these models are years away and won’t compete with the lowest-priced conventional cars, they hint at a future where EVs are genuinely affordable without government subsidies.