See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270973892

Private space exploration: A new way for starting a spacefaring society?

Article  in  Acta Astronautica · November 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008

CITATIONS READS

14 1,525

1 author:

Giancarlo Genta
Politecnico di Torino
275 PUBLICATIONS   1,577 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Actually, I am a Consultant of the European Community • Deputy Chairman of the Technical Committee TC3 of the IMEKO (Force, Mass and Couples and italian member
of TC-17 for Robotics. View project

Rotordynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giancarlo Genta on 09 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acta Astronautica ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Private space exploration: A new way for starting a

spacefaring society?
Giancarlo Genta
Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Since the beginning space was an exclusive domain of public organizations, the role of
Received 3 January 2014 privates is becoming more and more important, and not only in commercial activities.
Received in revised form However, the main international treaties dealing with this subject are still based on the
2 April 2014
assumption that space activities are mostly reserved to states. In the last decade the idea
Accepted 7 April 2014
that the role of privates could include the management of space infrastructures and
launch vehicles gained support and now private launch services are a reality. An even
Keywords: wider role of privates is now advocated and private exploration and exploitation missions
Space exploration are discussed. This requires that space activity in general can generate an attractive return
Space resources
and those business models are identified.
Space exploitation
& 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of IAA.
Private activities in space

1. Introduction countries acquired the ability of sending payloads into orbit,

The model for space exploration, that prevailed since its
beginning at the end of the 1950s, was based on a direct
involvement of governments, through the military and, in
most cases, through specifically created space agencies.
There were many reasons for this, but the main one can be
identified in the general climate of cold war in those years,
the programmatic non-existence of a private sector in one
of the two main actors (the Soviet Union) and perhaps also
in the utter novelty of this enterprise, that led to forecast
that the costs of exploring space were beyond the possi-
bilities of any private organization. In addition, the tech-
nologies required for those early space missions were
directly derived from military technologies and were
mostly mastered by the armed forces (army, aeronautics
and even navy) of the two main actors of the cold war [1].
In the beginning only the two superpowers, the US and
the Soviet Union, could participate to what was called a
‘space race’ and for decades these were the only countries
that had the capability of sending humans into space. Other
E-mail address: giancarlo.genta@polito.it
like Italy, Great Britain and France, usually through agree-
ments with the superpower ‘of reference’. In the meantime
other countries acquired this ability, like Indonesia, India,
Japan and China, some of them developing their own
launch systems, others using rockets manufactured abroad.
The space industry grew, with many actors entering into
play, both for spacecraft and launcher construction and for the
ability to perform all the complex operations needed to launch
and operate satellites, by developing their own ground sector.
Space exploration beyond LEO (and GEO) remained
mostly in the hands of the two main spacefaring countries,
with later some contributions by Europe, through the
European Space Agency. As a result, the main international
treaties dealing with space activities were heavily influ-
enced by the belief that states were the only actors in
space and that exploration could be peaceful only if states
refrained from claiming ‘things’ that exist beyond the
Earth as their own, and from taking any sort of weapons
in space. Everything of value existing there was to be
considered as belonging to humankind in general, and
should be exploited, if at all, in the interest of all humans.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by all the then
spacefaring countries, states significantly that the States

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008
0094-5765/& 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of IAA.

Please cite this article as: G. Genta, Private space exploration: A new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta
Astronautica (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008i
2 G. Genta / Acta Astronautica ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
shall bear international responsibility for national activ-
ities in outer space, whether such activities are carried on
by governmental agencies or by non-governmental enti-
ties. The states must thus authorize and supervise those
activities when they are performed by privates [2].
However, some governments did not sign the subse-
quent treaties, and there was no clear statement about
who, or how, was in charge of enforcing them. The USA,
for instance, did not ratify the so-called Moon Treaty of
1979 [3].
Actually, in the beginning this worked: none of the
actors was interested in exploiting anything that was in
space: the return of the huge investments was in terms of
prestige and national pride and in the propaganda of the
main actors the accent was laid on peace, advantages for
all humans, etc. This did not prevent all of them from
running many classified military missions and even trying
to develop weapons that could destroy enemy satellites.
Space activity allowed the development of a space
industry that, at least in the West, was private, but the
governmental agencies (and the military) designed and
managed directly the missions. Private companies built the
hardware (launchers, spacecraft, ground equipment, etc.)
at their specifications, with an autonomy mostly limited to
strictly technical choices, and under strict control. When
the Soviet Union collapsed, also the countries that were
generated from it adopted the same model.
Slowly a new model started emerging. The idea was
forwarded that space agencies were not to deal with all
kinds of space activities, leaving industrial ones, like
telecommunication satellites, but also meteorological and
Earth resources satellites, to private companies, concen-
trating on their main business, namely science and
exploration. The infrastructures and the launch vehicles
remained however under strict control of the agencies.
In the 1990s the total budget of the private activities in
space became greater than the total budget of space
agencies. But these activities were confined to LEO and
GEO.
2. The semi-private approach
The companies that performed commercial activities in
space proved to have mastered the technology required
not only to build and to operate satellites, but also to
operate the required launch vehicles.
In general, the cost of launching a payload into orbit
and of operating space systems was lower than the cost for
performing the same activities in the ‘old’ public way and
space commercial activities in Earth orbit proved to be
profitable enough for a market to develop.
Later, starting with year 2000, the idea that also in
science and exploration missions the space agencies
should buy launch services from private companies
emerged: transportation from the Earth surface to LEO
should be operated by privates, with agencies ‘buying
tickets’ from an ‘orbital transportation company’. Launch-
ers required for scientific and exploration missions are
thus not only built, but also studied, designed and oper-
ated by privates.
Please cite this article as: G. Genta, Private space exploration: A new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta
Astronautica (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008i
NASA awarded Commercial Orbital Transportation Ser-
vices (COTS) contracts to private companies, like Orbital
Science Corp. and Space X, to demonstrate delivery of
cargo to the International Space Station. In this way also
science and exploration activities could benefit from the
cost reduction due to the increase of commercial activities
and to the better efficiency of private models in managing
the access to space [4,5].
One of the reasons for this approach, that is at present
gaining momentum, was the failure of the Space Shuttle in
achieving the economical goals for which it was initially
designed [6]. The idea behind the Shuttle was that a
reusable spacecraft, managed by a space agency, could
allow a substantial reduction in the cost of access to space,
while increasing the overall launch capability. Both these
goals could not be achieved, and the ageing fleet of space
shuttles had to be retired, also because they proved to be
less safe than it was hoped.
The return to the use of expendable rocket and the
need of reducing the cost of satellization in spite of this,
forced the American government to change its policy and
to give incentives to privates to develop launch systems
that could be operated outside the space agencies. At
present this has proved to be feasible for unmanned
missions, including carrying cargo to the ISS. The plans
to qualify private launchers to carry humans are there and
it is likely that this will follow in few years.
It is also likely that a similar way will be undertaken by
other countries, at least those in which the private space
sector is strong enough to allow to follow this path.
3. The private approach
There is, however, another approach that is suggested
by many: exploration missions should be completely run
by private enterprises, that decide their goals, recruit the
crew (if any), build the equipment, operate the mission
and finally own the outcome, of whichever nature it is.
This private way to exploration is possible only if the
outcome of the mission is lucrative enough to justify the
investments and the risks. This was, for instance, the case
of the sea exploration journeys of the sixteenth century:
the value of the spices brought back by the only ship of the
Magellan's expedition that came back, for instance, did pay
for all the money that was invested in the journey. But, in
the near term, there are no resources equivalent to spices
to bring back from space and so this way looked not viable
for a long time. The advantages of this approach are at-
least two: a decrease in the cost of space exploration and,
above all, the possibility of maintaining longer term
engagements, without the frequent changes of objectives
and priorities imposed by politics.
To make this approach to exploration possible two
conditions are required: a decrease of the overall cost of
space travel and the identification of business models with
the related markets. These two conditions are however not
sufficient: private exploration requires a legislative back-
ground and possibly a set of incentives, without which no
private can invest in this business.
As already stated, the reduction of the cost of space
travel is both a pre-requisite and an outcome of the
 G. Genta / Acta Astronautica ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
privatization of space activities. In turn, technological
innovation is essential for reducing costs, but within itself
it requires huge investments. For instance, advances in
propulsion technology are essential to perform exploration
missions, and in particular crewed missions, in the trans-
lunar space. Is it realistic that private companies develop
nuclear thermal or nuclear electric propulsion system in a
completely autonomous way?
This is however a point that is not peculiar to space
exploration: states were in the past, and are still today,
deeply involved in funding technological research (and
also scientific research in fields that seem to have little
practical applications but are essential for the technologi-
cal advances of a more distant future), either directly or
through the military.
An example from the past can be mentioned: the
development of jet airliners was carried on by private
companies, and jet planes are owned and operated by
privates, but the first successful plane of this kind, the
Boeing 707 (the very first one, the De Haviland DH 106
Comet, did not have a large success) could be developed
owing to the experience Boeing gained in designing large
military jet planes like the B-47 Stratojet and then the
military transports C-97 Stratofreighter and KC-135 Stra-
totanker. A similar approach was tried for developing
supersonic airliners, and the B 70 Valkyrie became for
years a testbed for developing the SST (SuperSonic Trans-
port), until the whole program was canceled [7]. For the
present, the various initiatives by DARPA in the field of
autonomous vehicles can be mentioned.
Even if the private approach to space exploration will
be followed, a strong public funding to the related research
will be anyway required.
At present, many privately developed launch vehicles
are on the market and many more advanced projects are
underway. For instance, Space X developed the expendable
launch vehicles of the Falcon series that are operational
[8]. With the successful flight of the Dragon spacecraft,
it became the first private company to launch, orbit, and
recover a spacecraft. Space X is now building the Falcon
Heavy with a payload in LEO of 53 t and has plans for
reusable rockets and heavy lift rockets with a LEO payload
up to 140 t. Orbital Science [9], Yuzhnoye and other
companies are developing the Antares launch systems
that, together with the Cygnus spacecraft built together
with Thales Alenia Space, will be a competitor of the
Falcon–Dragon system.
Other companies are developing more innovative orbi-
tal spaceplanes, like the Skylon by the Reaction Engines
Ltd. The number of companies that pursue this way is
large, but at present they are still far from the application
stage. However, when they will succeed, they will offer a
true breakthrough and will cause the satellization cost
reduction that is essential for private space exploration to
take place.
However, the initiatives listed above deal more with
what was here referred to as semi-private approach (of the
COTS type) than to actual private space exploration. How-
ever, they are a required step in that direction since, before
engaging in true exploration, privates must acquire the
capability for launching payloads into space, and contracts
Please cite this article as: G. Genta, Private space exploration: A new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta
Astronautica (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008i
3
of the COTS type are the required instruments to supply
private companies the required research money.
4. Space tourism
A first business model that can be used to develop a
private presence in space is space tourism. Actually, space
tourism is already a fact, even if it is operated in a way that
can be considered as the exact opposite of what is called
above semi-private approach. Here a private organization
(a tour operator, Space Adventures [10] is at present the
only company to have sent paying passengers to space)
rents from a space agency (the Space Agency of the
Russian Federation Roscosmos) a seat on a launch vehicle
to reach a space station, where the tourist can spend some
days, and then back to Earth. Up to now 7 space tourists
have visited the ISS.
To really develop space tourism a private access to
space capability needs to be developed, and it is a common
opinion that only spaceplanes can supply the required
transportation capability at a cost low enough to allow an
increase in the potential market.
The first suborbital spaceplane to successfully fly was
the SpaceShipOne, designed by Burt Rutan of Scaled
Composites, that won the 10 million $ X prize. Virgin
Galactic [11] is planning to begin passenger service aboard
the VSS Enterprise, a Scaled Composites SpaceShipTwo.
XCOR Aerospace is developing a suborbital vehicle called
Lynx, smaller than Spaceship 2 but not needing a mother-
ship, being able to takeoff on its own.
The next step is orbital tourism. SpaceX [8], Boeing
(with Space Adventures [10]) and Excalibur Almaz [12]
plan to provide spacecraft, either of new design or mod-
ernized TKS Russian capsules, to be launched on expend-
able rockets to allow tourists to reach orbit. Other
companies plan to build spaceplanes for the same purpose.
Bigelow Aerospace [13] has already launched two inflata-
ble habitat modules and plans to develop orbital hotels.
Other companies plan to develop space stations for the
same use and the Space Island Group set out plans for
their Space Island Project, a huge space station able to host
first 20,000 people and much more later.
Some plans for lunar hotels have been forwarded and
Space Adventures is offering advance booking for a mis-
sion on a circumlunar trajectory. This mission will use two
Russian launch vehicles, a Soyuz capsule and an
unmanned lunar-propulsion module which will dock in
LEO, to proceed with the circumlunar flight. A circumlunar
flight is likely to precede actual lunar tourism. An inter-
esting fictional description of a mission of this kind is
contained in the novel Return to the Moon [14].
Golden Spike [15] plans to start flying roundtrips
missions to the Moon by 2020. The company will charge
1.5 billion $ for each mission, which will land two astro-
nauts on the lunar surface and return them back.
Clearly, space tourism is not private space exploration,
but is likely to be an essential intermediate step. It is a
common opinion that only through tourism it will be
possible to build the vehicles allowing a low cost access
to space, the infrastructures for spending extended periods
of time in orbit and later on the Moon and, last but not
4 G. Genta / Acta Astronautica ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
least, to acquire the ability to manage long duration human
space missions.
Another point that has not been much discussed, but
that might be important in the short term is virtual space
tourism. A rover, with a well developed video equipment,
may be sent to the Moon and the images it sends back are
used to create a virtual reality, for instance something like
a bus whose windows are screens displaying the lunar
landscape. The virtual tourists may even drive themselves
the ‘lunar bus’. If done properly, the subjective experience
may be not distinguishable from that of actually traveling
on the lunar surface. The rover could perform also scien-
tific tasks sharing the costs with other users. Virtual
tourism may be important to lower the cost of robotic
exploration and as an outreach activity to interest the
general public to space exploration.
One of the points that need to be carefully studied is
the legal frame in which space tourism is performed and
the related issue of safety. Clearly, safety must be the
primary issue in this field, not only for ethical reasons, but
also because a single accident may have heavy effects on
this business model and repeated accidents can even fully
destroy it [16–20].
5. Private science missions
Scientific missions are likely to be run in the future by
space agencies, as it was in the past, but there is space for
privates also in this field. Most of the scientific work in
other fields relies almost completely on private companies
to supply equipment and services. Scientists who perform
publicly funded research ask for a grant from governmental
agencies, academies of science or other public foundations,
but with this money they buy equipment from private
manufacturers, travel on privately owned planes, and spend
their money in the private sector. On the contrary, those
who perform space research try to have their experiments
included in the programs of a space agency and at that
point most of the money is spent directly by the latter, that
provides and manages the launch vehicle, issues contracts
for building the equipment and gives the grants to the
involved researchers.
Science missions can however be performed using a
different approach in which the scientists get funds from a
public organization, perhaps a space agency, and then buy
the space equipment and the launch services from a
private space transportation company. It is likely that in
this way the overall cost of space science will decrease and
more scientific missions can be run with a given public
investment.
But much research in non-space science is directly
performed by private companies and research centers.
The existence of a strong space transportation industry
may make it possible that many scientific space missions
are run in the same way.
6. Private space exploration
Space exploration is the core of space activities and is
essential in creating a spacefaring civilization. In this
sense, exploration is the most important thing that is
Please cite this article as: G. Genta, Private space exploration: A new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta
Astronautica (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008i
made in space and is instrumental for both space coloni-
zation and space exploitation. In the view of what was
called semi-private approach, exploration is an activity
mostly performed by space agencies, that may use private
transportation services, mainly from the surface of Earth to
orbit, and then proceed on their own to explore the
various destinations with both manned and unmanned
missions.
However, in the last years many private exploration
missions were forwarded.
For private exploration it is essential that the company
that performs the mission has a return from the invest-
ment. This is possible if
1. A space agency gives a contract to a private organiza-
tion for performing the exploration mission,
2. Exploration activity is connected with a scientific
activity funded by a public or private organization,
3. Exploration activity is connected with a touristic
activity,
4. Exploration activity is connected with a resource
exploitation activity, and
5. Exploration activity is connected with a commercial
activity of other kind.
Other schemes are possible, but only the mentioned
ones will be considered here.
An additional possibility is that private or governmen-
tal organizations award a prize for performing a given
mission. This approach worked well in the past, at the
beginning of the 20th century, when prizes were awarded
for a number of achievements in aviation, like the 25,000 $
Orteig. Prize for the first non-stop crossing of the Atlantic
ocean (won by Charles Lindberg in 1927) caused important
advances in civil aviation. Prizes, however, are not suffi-
cient in themselves: it is unlikely that a company or a
group of investors embarks in such costly enterprises with
the only prospect of attempting to win a prize, unless the
latter is unrealistically high. There must be some business
model underlying the enterprise, but the presence of the
prize can make an attractive mission that may produce an
economical reward that is uncertain or much postponed in
time. A good example is the 10 million $ Ansari X Prize
[21] (won in 2004 by Burt Rutan with the Spaceship One)
for the first suborbital flight made under conditions that
simulate a commercial (touristic) flight. In this case the
business model was space tourism, and the prize allowed
Rutan to build his spacecraft even if the actual possibility
of carrying paying passengers was still far in time (in 2013
the actual spacecraft, the Spaceship 2 has not yet flown).
6.1. Lunar exploration
At present the most interesting prize for space explora-
tion is the Google Lunar X Prize [21,22]. It will be awarded
to the first private group that succeeds in landing on the
Moon a rover able to travel at least 500 m. The prize is
worth 20 million $, plus 10 million $ for additional
achievements, and has very detailed rules (some changes
of the rules are underway at the time of writing). At May
 G. Genta / Acta Astronautica ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
2013 there were 33 teams participating to the competition.
Each team has a business model for getting the funding
needed for the mission. The amount of money needed for
the mission has been evaluated by the various teams in
different ranges, from some tens of thousands to slightly
more than hundred thousand $. This is much less than
what is required for a similar mission run by a space
agency, but is not easily put together, particularly in the
present economic situation.
Almost all teams are ready to rent some space on board
to research teams, even from space agencies, to carry
instruments to the Moon (business model 2, see above),
in connection with other funding sources. For instance,
Team Italia (the websites of all teams may be accessed
through [22]) is trying to raise funding in the advertising
market, something not impossible giving the large media
coverage that the mission will have and the huge adver-
tising budget of many companies. Moon Express has a
contract with NASA for carrying scientific instruments and
plans to make prospecting work for mining activities
(business model 4). Astrobotic Icebreaker mission will
explore for methane, ammonia, and water at the Moon's
north pole (business model 4) and is also looking for
sponsors looking for media promotion.
Omega Envoy team offers to fly one's DNA or ashes to
the Moon, for a sort of lunar burial. Apart from this
mission, the idea of orbital, lunar and deep space funerals
has attracted several investors, and Celestis Inc.[23] is
currently operating in this sector (since 1997). This is
another business model, that may be included in Section
(5) above and that may be promising.
On a larger scale, the Artemis Project [24] is a privately
financed commercial venture to establish a permanent,
self-supporting crewed lunar base. The aim is developing
lunar resources and creating an environment for the
growth of private industry in space. The Moon Society
[25] is carrying on these goals and makes plans for private
moon colonization.
The Texas-based Shackleton Energy Company [26] has
plans to start producing liquid oxygen and hydrogen on
the Moon from water as early as 2020. It is however
questionable whether they can have customers at their
‘gas station’ at such an early date.
6.2. Asteroid resources exploitation
Also exploration beyond the Moon is considered by
privates.
In 2012 a company, called Planetary Resources [27], was
formed for entering into the business of asteroid mining.
They plan to create a fuel depot in space by 2020 by using
water from asteroids to produce liquid oxygen and hydro-
gen and exploiting also other resources. Deep Space Indus-
tries [28] hopes to begin prospecting for asteroids suitable
for mining by 2015 and to begin mining asteroids by 2023.
It is still controversial whether this may be profitable at
present costs of space travel, but it surely will be when
(and if) this cost will be lower. Profitability of extracting
water to produce fuel depends also on the intensity of
traffic beyond LEO. For the other resources, a relatively
small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km may
Please cite this article as: G. Genta, Private space exploration: A new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta
Astronautica (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008i
5
contain more than $20 trillion worth of industrial and
precious metals and a small M-type asteroid (1 km in
diameter) could contain more than two billion metric tons
of iron–nickel ore, i.e. two to three times the annual
production of 2004. The asteroid 16 Psyche is believed to
contain 1.7  1019 kg of nickel–iron, which could supply
the world production for several million years. Platinum
from a 30-meter asteroid is worth 25–50 billion $, but
extracting such quantities of precious metals could lower
their price, making these estimates too optimistic. How-
ever, it is likely that the abundance of resources from
asteroids will make available precious metals for technical
uses, that are now impossible owing to their cost. Asteroid
mining will transform precious metals into technical
metals, with profits due to the quantities required more
than to their high cost.
There is little doubt that asteroid mining will be one of
the foundations of a spacefaring civilization, allowing an
increasing abundance and wealth. What is in doubt is
whether it can be pursued before establishing a civilization
of that type, and be one of the factors that allow it to start.
6.3. Mars exploration
Recently, a number of private initiatives advocating
Mars private exploration were proposed. This marks a
change of perspective: since decades, private societies,
like the Mars Society [29], are lobbying to promote Mars
exploration, trying to push space agencies to hasten it.
What is now new is the starting of companies that take
this problem in their hands, planning private missions. The
simplest missions, proposed by the nonprofit organization
Inspiration Mars Foundation [30], is a space cruise for two
people on a 501-day Mars flyby travel. The main goals are
to generate excitement about space travel and test tech-
nologies that will be needed to land on Mars in the future.
It is thus an extreme space tourism enterprise, with some
accent on outreach and advertising.
The mission would combine a commercial space cap-
sule and an inflatable module into a single spacecraft that
will carry a man and a woman, possibly a married couple,
to Mars and back. The proposed timeframe is extremely
tight, since the 2018 launch window is suggested. It may
appear unrealistic that two people can live in such con-
fined quarters for the time required for the mission and
also other technical aspects may seem questionable.
The Dutch nonprofit organization Mars One [31] aims to
land four colonists on Mars by 2025. Their plan is coloniza-
tion, so that they designed the mission with multiple one-
way trips: after all colonists go somewhere to stay, and not
to come back after some time. The first trip is expected to
cost about $6 billion, that can be paid for with a reality-TV
event built around the mission, from astronaut selection to
the settlers' first years on the Red Planet.
Even SpaceX [8] plans to establish a Mars colony in a
more far away, but not-too-distant, future. The long term
goal is establishing a settlement of up to 80,000 people.
This huge enterprise would be made possible by the
reusable rocket SpaceX is building. The explicitly declared
goal is that of contributing to the birth of a multiplanet,
spacefaring civilization.
6 G. Genta / Acta Astronautica ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
6.4. Other deep space science missions
B612 Foundation [32] is a nonprofit organization dedi-
cated to the protection of our planet from meteorite
strikes. It is preparing the Sentinel mission, based on an
infrared space telescope located on a Venus-like orbit that
should identify and map the orbits of near-Earth asteroids.
The mission is planned for 2018, and the foundation relies
on private donations to gather the 450 million $ required
to achieve its goals. After the explosion over Russia on 15
February 2013 caused by a not yet identified meteorite,
several scientists insisted on the need for a mission of this
kind, and donations sharply increased.
The funding of this mission does not follow the scheme
of most commercial missions, since it relies on donations
and is closer to what happens for humanitarian organiza-
tions than for commercial space companies.
7. Infrastuctures
Space activities need ground infrastructures, that in the
‘public approach’ have always been owned and run by
the space agencies or at least by public organizations. In
the private approach these infrastructures are usually
owned and run by the private sector, likely by suitable
companies. The most common of such infrastructures are
spaceports, that are essential for space tourism. For them
the model may be that of airports, that do not belong to
airlines, but supply services to them, and the wide experi-
ence in this field should make them straightforward. A
different matter is what is usually called ‘ground sector’,
including control rooms, training facilities, communication
networks, etc. Some may belong to the company that runs
the mission, while other may be rented even from space
agencies, that have a long experience in this field.
With time other infrastructures will be required: space
stations, bases on the Moon, Mars and asteroids, orbital
depots, orbital and lunar power stations (both solar and
nuclear), transportation systems on the surface of celestial
bodies, repair centers in space and on planets, etc. In the
private approach also they will likely be run by private
companies, and will provide large business opportunities.
Running these off-Earth infrastructures will provide
jobs and opportunities both on Earth and in space and
will provide a limitless economic growth. As O'Neil rea-
lized in the 1960s [33], in a spacefaring civilization many
activities and jobs will be transferred from Earth to space,
allowing unprecedented wealth and lightening of the
pressure on the Earth environment. These are the pillars
of the Space Option.
Finally, what is likely to be the largest and most costly
space infrastructure, the space elevator, must be considered.
When (and if, since there are doubts on its feasibility) a
space elevator will be technically feasible, its economic
feasibility must be evaluated [34]. It will be a viable project
only if the traffic between the Earth surface and space will
exceed a minimum, that depends on many factors, like the
cost of the elevator itself, the alternatives that at that time
will be available (it is more difficult to justify a space
elevator if one stage to orbit spaceplanes are available, than
if LEO is reached only through expendable rockets), etc.
Please cite this article as: G. Genta, Private space exploration: A new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta
Astronautica (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008i
Now it is too early to discuss whether this infrastruc-
ture will be owned and run by a state, more likely by a
number of states through an international organization, or
by private companies. At any rate, such a huge infrastruc-
ture will need also an innovative legislative framework
and innovative management as well as innovative tech-
nology and engineering.
8. The need for A suitable legal background
As already stated, present international treaties on
space activities hardly take into account that space
exploration is performed by privates, except for stating
that states have at any rate the ultimate responsibility and
that the activities of non-governmental entities require
authorization and continuing supervision by the appro-
priate State. This situation needs to be improved, if the
opportunity for a new golden age of space exploration is
not to be lost. Also national legislation, including standards
and regulations, must take into account this new reality.
Safety regulations are essential. There is no doubt that
exploration cannot avoid to be risky and people occasion-
ally have always died, and will always die, in exploration
journeys, and the fact that we are much more risk averse
than our forefathers is in itself a factor that can make
exploration difficult. The way in which we perceive risks is a
cultural matter and varies, even today, in different countries
and, within the same country, among subcultures. While
people are allowed to risk their lives in dangerous sports
and activities, the concern about safety and the ensuing
regulations allowed to make much safer even activities that
were very dangerous in the past. A typical example is
Formula 1 car racing: with no fatal accident in official races
since 1994 (compared to 1.5 fatal accidents per year in the
1950s), in spite of the many severe (and spectacular)
accidents that often happen in such competitions. This is
mostly due to strict regulations that compelled all actors,
car builders, racetrack designers, organizers and those who
issue the rules, to behave in the most responsible way and
to the transfer of advanced safety technology from standard
vehicles to racing cars. This demonstrates that safety can be
increased even in quite dangerous activities.
This does not mean that space exploration, in particular
exploration of distant places, can be performed with no
risks, but that it is possible to greatly reduce risks through
careful planning and design.
While occasional accidents must not stop human space
exploration, on the other side any overly dangerous mis-
sion must be avoided, and all people involved must be
fully aware of the risks and must behave consequently. In
particular, regulations must be very strict in the case of
space tourism.
Some activities are more sensitive to the rules that
underlie space activities: asteroid mining, and in general
space resources exploitation, is likely to be much more
sensitive to international and national laws and to incen-
tives. It is a common opinion that only a complete
rethinking of the present regulations will allow private
space activities in these fields to really take off.
 G. Genta / Acta Astronautica ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
9. Conclusions
One of the worst things that may happen is space
agencies fighting against the private sector in space. This
danger seems to be avoided; for instance, NASA spokesman
David Steitz, speaking about the plans of Inspiration Mars for
sending a spacecraft around Mars, said: “…It is a testament
to the audacity of America's commercial aerospace industry
and the adventurous spirit of America's citizen-explorers…
NASA will continue discussions with Inspiration Mars to see
how the agency might collaborate on mutually beneficial
activities that could complement NASA's human spaceflight,
space technology and Mars exploration plans.” [35] The very
fact that NASA is issuing COTS shows that this space agency
has fully understood the advantages to have space transpor-
tation managed by private organizations, at least for what
transfer to LEO is concerned. Also to go beyond LEO it is
possible to devise a system based on space tugs refueled at
depots that obtain fuel from the Moon or some asteroid,
again managed by privates.
It is hoped that also the other space agencies are equally
open to the cooperation with private operators, and that in
the future there will be many competing companies operat-
ing in space.
Some points must however be further studied and
discussed.
 To really start a spacefaring civilization, new technolo-
gies must be developed, and in particular it will be
necessary to go beyond chemical propulsion. Nuclear
thermal and/or nuclear electric propulsion must be
developed and this may prove beyond the possibilities
of space transportation companies. In particular,
nuclear thermal propulsion reached a fairly good TRL
in 1970s and could be brought to operational levels
without a large research effort [36]. Here the role of
governments may prove to be essential, either per-
forming the required research work directly, through
the space agencies or national laboratories or through
public funding to the involved companies.
 The international treaties and the laws regarding space
activities must be revised to encourage private organi-
zations to play an active role in space, not only with
regard to the commercial activities in LEO and GEO, but
also in deep space exploration and exploitation.
10. Acronyms
COTS Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
GEO Geostationary Earth Orbit
Please cite this article as: G. Genta, Private space exploration: A new way for starting a spacefaring society? Acta
Astronautica (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2014.04.008i
View publication stats
7
ISS International Space Station
LEO Low Earth Orbit
TRL Technology Readiness Level
References
[1] T.A. Heppenheimer, Countdown: A History of Space Flight, Wiley,
New York, 1997.
[2] P.G. Dembling, D.M. Arons, The evolution of the outer space treaty,
J. Air Law Comm. 33, 419–456, 1967, reprinted in Space Law, Francis
Lyall and Paul B. Larsen (eds), Ashgate, 2007, pp. 151–188.
[3] L. Billings, How shall we live in space? Culture, law and ethics in
spacefaring society, Space Policy 22 (2006) 249–255.
[4] A. Lindenmoyer, D. Stone, Status of NASA's commercial cargo and
crew transportation initiative, Acta Astronaut. 66 (2010) 788–791.
[5] Aldrin, et al., CASH 2021: commercial access and space habitation,
Acta Astronaut. 51 (No. 1–9) (2002) 637–646.
[6] G. Genta, M. Rycroft, Space, The Final Frontier?, Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, 2003.
[7] T.A. Heppenheimer, A Brief History of Flight, Wiley, New York, 2001.
[8] 〈http://www.spacex.com/〉.
[9] 〈http://www.orbital.com/HumanSpaceExplorationSystems/〉.
[10] 〈http://www.spaceadventures.com/〉.
[11] 〈http://www.virgingalactic.com/〉.
[12] 〈http://www.excaliburalmaz.com/〉.
[13] 〈http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/〉.
[14] T. Taylor, L. Johnson, Back to the Moon, Baen Books, Riverdale, 2010.
[15] 〈http://goldenspikecompany.com/〉.
[16] S. Hob, The legal regime for private space tourism activities—an
overview, Acta Astronaut. 66 (2010) 1593–1596.
[17] T. Masson-Zwaan, S. Freeland, Between heaven and earth: the legal
challenges of human space travel, Acta Astronaut. 66 (2010) 1597–1607.
[18] R. Crowther, The regulatory challenges of ensuring commercial
human spaceflight safety, Space Policy 27 (2011) 74–76.
[19] F.G. von der Dunk, Space tourism, private spaceflight and the law:
key aspects, Space Policy 27 (2011) 146–152.
[20] F.G. von der Dunk, The integrated approach — Regulating private
human spaceflight as space activity, aircraft operation, and high-risk
adventure tourism, Acta Astronaut. 92 (2013) 199–208.
[21] 〈http://www.xprize.org/prize-development/exploration〉.
[22] 〈http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams/〉.
[23] 〈http://www.celestis.com/〉.
[24] 〈http://www.asi.org/〉.
[25] 〈http://www.moonsociety.org/〉.
[26] 〈http://www.shackletonenergy.com/〉.
[27] 〈http://www.planetaryresources.com/〉.
[28] 〈http://deepspaceindustries.com/〉.
[29] 〈http://www.marssociety.org/〉.
[30] 〈http://marsfoundation.org/〉.
[31] 〈http://mars-one.com/〉.
[32] 〈http://b612foundation.org/〉.
[33] G.K. O'Neill, The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, Bantam
Books, New York, 1977.
[34] P.A. Swan, et al., (Eds.), Space Elevators: An Assessment of the
Technological Feasibility and the Way Forward, The Virginia Edition,
Houston, 2014.
[35] 〈http://moonandback.com/2013/02/27/dennis-tito-and-team-outli
ne-audacious-plan-for-mars-trip/〉.
[36] J. Dewar, The Nuclear Rocket, Apogee Books, Burlington, 2009.