![\"Why](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/il\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/1788249568_space.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
A\u00a0notable distinction<\/a> between the First Space Age (1950s to 2010s) and the Second Space Age (2010s onwards) lies in the reversal of priorities. During the First Space Age, fundamental scientific research took precedence, followed by engineering efforts and, finally, economic considerations. Conversely, in the Second Space Age, the hierarchy of priorities has been inverted, with the space economy taking precedence, followed by engineering and, ultimately, scientific research. There is considerable interest in the space economy, but far fewer are interested in the space sciences. Though the space sciences and the space economy are not at loggerheads, they share a common concern: the lack of a philosophical foundation for humanity\u2019s venture into outer space.\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Though the space sciences and the space economy are not at loggerheads, they share a common concern: the lack of a philosophical foundation for humanity\u2019s venture into outer space.\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Rethinking the Purpose of Planetary Exploration <\/p>\n Extraterrestrial human habitation, extractive economics, technological demonstrations, astropolitical rivalries, and even the prospect of post-Earth refuge have become primary motivations for lunar and Martian exploration. These motivations are evident<\/a> in public and private investment in the Artemis Programme and the Sino-Russian International Lunar Research Station megaprojects. Regrettably, a fundamental question that should have been addressed after nearly sixty years of planetary exploration remains unexamined: what conditions enable the solar system to support the evolution and survival of life and the development of human civilisation on Earth?<\/p>\n In 2023, when India<\/a> and China<\/a> were heading towards the lunar South Pole, the larger, much-publicised objective was extractive economics. The primary goal was to identify subterranean reserves of water ice, especially in craters permanently shadowed for billions of years. However, Chandrayaan-3<\/a> and the samples returned to China by the Chang\u2019e-6<\/a> spacecraft unveiled a different dimension of the Moon’s geological history.<\/p>\n Both missions revealed anomalous geological features, including elevated quantities of sulfur. These findings pointed to the intense bombardment of the young Moon by asteroids and other small bodies nearly 4.0 to 4.5 billion years ago \u2014 a cataclysmic process that smashed its surface and churned its interior. The Aitken Basin at the lunar South Pole, long known as one of the biggest<\/a> asteroid impact sites across all terrestrial planets, demonstrates the scale of the immense impacts absorbed by the Moon, some of which could otherwise have struck the young Earth.<\/p>\n Such impacts continue to this day. In 1994, the comet Shoemaker-Levy<\/a> spectacularly impacted Jupiter in an event visible to astronomers. Later, in 2009, amateur astronomers observed an immense impact zone<\/a>, the size of the Pacific Ocean, on Jupiter. Space science studies have shown how the two gas giants at the centre of the Solar System \u2014 Jupiter and Saturn \u2014 have, owing to their immense gravitational pull, swept up and captured a large number of comets and asteroids that could have hit the inner Solar System, including the only known inhabited planet, Earth.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n One of the central goals of the planetary science community should be to identify those features of the Solar System that enable life on Earth to survive, evolve, and ultimately give rise to human civilisation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n While climate, environmental and Earth scientists play a major role in studying Earth\u2019s biogeochemical processes and the impacts of anthropogenic activities, the role of planetary scientists needs to be understood within a new philosophical framework. One of the central goals of the planetary science community should be to identify those features of the Solar System that enable life on Earth to survive, evolve, and ultimately give rise to human civilisation.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Solar System as a Life-Support System <\/p>\n All the great cultures of our world have emphasised the importance of venerating and paying homage to nature<\/a> for the benefits it provides to humans and other living organisms on Earth. Within the framework of a market-driven global economy, a 2024 study by an Australian scientific and economic research<\/a> group led by the University of Tasmania examined natural processes as services to the global economy.<\/p>\n For the last few decades, the environmental impact of anthropogenic climate change on Antarctica and the Southern Ocean has been well studied<\/a>. The group instead turned the inquiry towards assessing the economic value of the natural processes associated with Antarctica and the Southern Ocean that aid the global economy.<\/p>\n The Southern Ocean is a major carbon and heat sink<\/a>; its krill<\/a> and other fauna provide biological resources of significant importance to biopharmaceuticals<\/a>; and the circumpolar Antarctic Current plays an important role in global oceanic currents<\/a>. The icy Antarctic landmass reflects<\/a> a large percentage of incoming solar radiation back into space, helping keep the Earth cooler than it would otherwise be without the polar ice shelves. The group conservatively estimated the economic value of these natural processes at about US$ 180 billion annually.<\/p>\n There is now a precedent for space economists to establish an economic estimate \u2014 serving as a measure rather than an absolute value \u2014 of the natural processes within the Solar System that protect the survival and enable the flourishing of life on Earth. To mention a few life-critical questions:<\/p>\n
There is considerable potential for space scientists and space economists to converge on such questions more frequently. This could encourage philanthropic foundations and governments, offering a necessary departure from the increasingly familiar priorities that dominate global space pursuits.<\/p>\n Towards Solar System Boundaries <\/p>\n In 2009, the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University proposed a far-reaching measure for quantifying nine guardrails \u2014 known as Planetary Boundaries<\/a> \u2014 that determine the safety and resilience of all life forms on Earth. According to the 2025 assessment, six of the nine boundaries<\/a> \u2014 novel entities, climate change, biosphere integrity, land-system change, freshwater change, and biogeochemical flows \u2014 have been breached, placing Earth systems under immense pressure.<\/p>\n In 2020, the Stockholm Resilience Centre advanced the concept of bringing economic growth within the confines<\/a> of the safe limits set by planetary boundaries. The concept highlighted the need for new ways of measuring economic growth that acknowledge the Earth system\u2019s complex, adaptive nature and vulnerabilities. Such environmental health-driven economic metrics are central to Beyond GDP<\/a> systems currently being trialled across various countries, including India<\/p>\n The Earth\u2019s safe operating space is shaped not only by factors originating on Earth but also by conditions beyond it, including the habitability of the Solar System and the security from existential<\/a> risks afforded by its planetary environment and the Sun. While anthropogenic contributions are a significant source of vulnerability and must be addressed seriously, the vulnerabilities facing Earth extend well beyond human activity and the confines of the planet itself<\/p>\n In recent years, there has been considerable excitement about establishing AI data centres in Earth’s orbit. However, what would be the cost of losing such data centres, especially if their electronics were damaged by geomagnetic storms<\/a>? A 1989-like solar storm, similar to the one that brought down Quebec’s electricity grid, could, if it occurred today, cause economic losses of approximately US$ 2.4 to US$ 3.4 trillion<\/a>, with economic consequences affecting countries far from the region where the grid collapsed. If a meteor associated with Chelyabinsk or Tunguska were to hit a populous megacity such as New Delhi, Beijing, Jakarta, Dubai, S\u00e3o Paulo, or Tokyo, it could cause catastrophic human losses and economic losses worth trillions of dollars<\/a>.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n The narrative that Mars is the next habitat for humanity overlooks the fact that humans are part of a natural continuum that has evolved over billions of years.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Many nations today struggle to clearly articulate the scientific necessity for planetary exploration. The scientific rationale is often obscured by the emphasis on technological demonstration, which, although significant, does not always resonate with broader public concerns. The narrative<\/a> that Mars is the next habitat for humanity overlooks the fact that humans are part of a natural continuum that has evolved over billions of years.<\/p>\n A future involving the establishment of sterile outposts on the Moon and Mars may serve research and investigative purposes; however, it does not, by itself, address the conditions necessary for life to evolve and flourish. Consequently, planetary exploration must evolve beyond the limited objectives of extraterrestrial resource extraction and the establishment of new outposts. It should also focus on better understanding and protecting the conditions that sustain life on Earth.<\/p>\n If the space economy is to underpin space activities, then it cannot become a reckless and exploitative \u2018cowboy economy\u2019 but must instead be grounded in systems thinking. Beyond an economic framework shaped by planetary boundaries, a space economy could be developed around \u2018solar system boundaries\u2019, akin to planetary boundaries.<\/p>\n Chaitanya Giri is a Fellow at the Centre for Security, Strategy, and Technology at the Observer Research Foundation.<\/p>\n
\nWhat is the economic value of avoiding expenditure on planetary defence systems that would otherwise be required to regularly intercept incoming potentially hazardous objects capable of wiping out cities and small countries, or even causing temporary climate change similar to 1816, the Year without Summer<\/a>?
\nWhat is the economic expenditure saved by not having to artificially oxygenate the oceans if the several hundred thousand metric tonnes of iron-rich interplanetary dust particles that fall into the world\u2019s oceans<\/a> \u2014 feeding oxygen-generating plankton and, thereafter, the wider food chain \u2014 were to cease?
\nWhat is the economic value of the Moon, which has generated tides in the world’s oceans for billions of years and now serves as a potential source<\/a> of inexhaustible tidal energy?
\nWhat is the economic value of solar winds not depleting the ozone layer, thereby preventing large-scale skin cancers<\/a> among the world’s population, while also protecting electricity grids<\/a> from damage caused by radiation?
<\/p>\n