If there is one constant in this world, it is human hubris—and space and astronomy are no exception.
The ancients believed everything revolved around Earth. In the 16th century, Copernicus and others overturned that view with the heliocentric model. Since then, telescopes and spacecraft have revealed our true insignificance. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains hundreds of billions of stars, each a sun like our own, many with orbiting planets. In 1995, the Hubble Space Telescope captured its first deep-field image, showing that the known universe holds hundreds of billions of galaxies—vast, spinning collections of stars scattered across the cosmos.
If we take the International Astronomical Union’s definition of space as everything in the universe beyond our planet and atmosphere, the question “Who owns space?” seems almost laughable. It’s hubris on an entirely new level. The idea that we could lay claim to the rest of the universe goes beyond conceit—it’s like a few atoms in my little toe gaining consciousness and declaring ownership of my entire body.
A few years ago, I suggested that space exploration could be divided into three distinct eras. The first was confrontation. The Second World War fueled our initial forays into the void, as rockets proved an effective way to deliver munitions over greater distances. The space race grew from military competition—a drive for superiority. The second era brought collaboration. The formation of the European Space Agency in 1975 and the symbolic docking of Soviet and American spacecraft showed what humanity could achieve together. But now we are entering a third era: commercialization. Space exploration is no longer just the domain of nations, but of billionaires, private companies, and startups promising holidays in orbit.
Space should be regarded as a shared domain, much like the high seas or Antarctica.
Of course, the space industry has included commercial elements for decades—many communications satellites, Earth-observation systems, and some launch vehicles are privately funded and operated. But what’s changing is that humans themselves are now part of the business plan, as we shift from exploration toward potential exploitation. Private space stations, space tourism, lunar and asteroid mining—this is the new frontier. So the question of ownership suddenly carries legal, ethical, and economic urgency.
Legally, the framework for managing space was established long ago. In the late 1950s and early ’60s, as rockets first left Earth’s atmosphere, the United Nations drafted agreements to govern activities beyond our planet. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 set out remarkably idealistic principles: “The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” I’d reword that last phrase to “humankind,” but the sentiment remains one I admire.
It’s a beautiful vision, but one that may grow increasingly fragile. As technology advances, these noble principles will collide with economic reality. When a company discovers valuable minerals on the moon or an asteroid, who profits?
I believe commercialization is necessary—space must pay for itself, because without profit, humanity could remain Earth-bound for centuries. Exploration is expensive, and governments alone cannot foot the bill. If mining helium-3 or capturing asteroids helps fund missions that expand our knowledge, enhance our capabilities, and improve how we care for our planet, that could be a positive development. But commercialization must be paired with equity and transparency. Otherwise, we risk repeating the mistakes of our past—but on a cosmic scale.
The comparison I often draw is with the East India Company: a private British enterprise.That entity grew so powerful it could shape the politics of nations and at times commanded an army twice the size of Britain’s. It began as trade; it ended in domination. Could a similar dynamic unfold locally in our solar system, where a handful of today’s tech giants and billionaires control access to orbit, communications, and eventually, extraterrestrial resources? A monopoly in space would be dangerous for humanity. The challenge is to encourage innovation and investment without ceding ownership of the cosmos to a few individuals or organisations.
The moon is a fascinating case study. For scientists, it serves as a natural laboratory—a place to study planetary history and test new technologies. But it’s also an appealing commercial target. There’s water ice at its poles, which can be split into hydrogen and oxygen to make rocket fuel. Its gravity is only one-sixth of Earth’s, making it a sound launch base for deeper space exploration. And some have suggested mining the lunar surface for helium-3, a potential fuel for future fusion reactors. The possibilities are tantalising. But who decides how the moon’s resources should be used, and by whom?
The Outer Space Treaty forbids national appropriation, but it doesn’t explicitly prohibit private companies from extracting resources. That ambiguity has prompted countries such as the United States and Luxembourg to pass their own space-mining laws, granting rights to their domestic firms. Yet if each nation makes its own rules, could the result be chaos like the early Wild West—or even conflict? Space, by its nature, demands global regulation.
That’s why I believe we need to revive the spirit of the early treaties, not just in words but through action. Space should be regarded as a shared domain, similar to the high seas or, perhaps more fittingly, Antarctica. No one owns Antarctica. It is protected for peaceful research under an international agreement. That hasn’t stopped some countries from eyeing its minerals, but the principle remains: collective stewardship. Space warrants the same approach. The way we behave in this third era of space exploration will define not just the future of discovery, but the kind of species we are. Do we carry our old rivalries and greed into the stars, or do we finally learn to act as one planet, united by curiosity and care?
As always, I’m hopeful. I trust the new generation to do a better job, and space has a way of putting things into perspective. When astronauts look down at Earth from orbit, they describe a sense of awe, known as the “overview effect.” They see our planet as it really is—fragile and shared. Perhaps if we can hold on to that view, even as we venture further out, we might be able to reach for the stars in a way that benefits everyone.
Dame Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock will deliver the 2025 Christmas Lectures from the Royal Institution.
Further reading
Orbital by Samantha Harvey (Jonathan Cape, £9.99)
Who Owns the Moon? by A.C. Grayling (Oneworld, £10.99)
A City on Mars by Dr Kelly Weinersmith and Zach Weinersmith (Penguin, £11.69)
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs The New Space Race and Billionaire Involvement
BeginnerLevel Questions
What is the new space race
Its a modern competition primarily driven by private companies like SpaceX Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic to achieve milestones in space exploration tourism and technology Unlike the 20thcentury race between the US and USSR this one is largely funded by billionaires and private capital
Who are the main billionaires involved
The most prominent figures are Elon Musk Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson Other billionaires and investors are also funding various space startups
Why are billionaires investing in space
Their stated goals vary reducing space travel costs enabling a future with millions living and working in space and creating space tourism Motivations also include business opportunities technological advancement and personal passion
Is this just about tourism
No its much broader While tourism is a visible part the goals include satellite internet constellations lunar landings missions to Mars mining asteroids for resources and reducing the cost of access to space for science and industry
Is NASA still involved
Absolutely NASA is now a major customer of these companies It contracts with them to transport astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station allowing NASA to focus on deeper space exploration goals
Advanced Impact Questions
What are the biggest advantages of private companies leading the charge
They can move faster take more risks and drive innovation through competition significantly lowering costs This commercialization of lowEarth orbit frees up government agencies for more ambitious longterm science missions
What are the potential downsides or risks
Critics point to issues like space debris from thousands of new satellites the wild west regulation of space activities the carbon footprint of rocket launches and the ethical concerns of wealth inequality when vast resources are spent on space instead of Earths problems
Will billionaires own space
No The
