Send message to Author

Short abstract

Sociotechnical imaginaries of sustainability in outer space are investigated through a social study of bioregenerative life support systems (BLSSs). Ecological imaginaries of outer space about future colonisation of other planets, closure and circularity, and space farming are presented.

Long abstract

Bioregenerative life support systems (BLSSs) are technological assemblages designed to sustain human life in long-term space missions and planetary settlements thanks to the regeneration of oxygen and water, and producing food for the crew. At present, BLSS is a concept for the future, along with all social and cultural implications that such a project might have for scientists, astronauts, or humanity at large. As BLSSs are centred on the conception of terrestrial ecosystems, and on how the latter’s peculiar conditions can be reproduced and engineered into human habitats in extraterrestrial environments, this scientific domain relies on, and at the same time conveys, imaginations of human-environment relationships that need to be framed into new ecological configurations projected into outer space. Hence, this contribution aims at presenting these imaginations, building on the concepts of sociotechnical imaginaries, and, therefore, discussing them as future scenarios that bridge current technological capabilities and knowledge of earthly ecosystems, and their reconfiguration in outer space (or in extreme environments on Earth). The proposal relies theoretically on concepts from STS and Social Studies of Outer Space (SSOS) and empirically on a qualitative analysis of the scientific literature and web-based popular communication relevant to BLSS and space farming, the contribution presents three sociotechnical and ecological imaginaries: the resurgence of space colonisation, a circular future in closed environments, and the theme of the astronaut as a farmer. These imaginaries depict a desirable and attainable future relating to human existence as possibly independent from terrestrial resources and, thereby, projected onto otherworldly scenarios.

Send message to Author

Short abstract

This research reinterprets systemic risk misperceptions and cognitive traps, as identified by the authors of "The Limits to Growth", in light of contemporary challenges to space sustainability, particularly the proliferation of space debris.

Long abstract

The sustainability challenges currently faced in outer space governance closely mirror those previously encountered on Earth, particularly in relation to climate change, resource overuse, and systemic risk misperception. Drawing on systems thinking developed by Dr. Donella Meadows in “Limits of Growth”, this paper examines how persistent misconceptions in human understanding of complex systems undermine resilience in space activities. These misconceptions, such as inappropriate framing, misjudgement of exponential growth, delayed responsibility, and over reliance on technological fixes, are analysed through the lens of space sustainability.

The analysis further highlights how uncertainty, feedback delays, and autonomous system behaviour, well-documented in Earth’s climate system, are equally present in orbital environments. The growing collision risks exemplifies how unaddressed systemic dynamics can propagate across sectors. Moreover, technological advances such as active debris removal illustrate the limits of technology-driven sustainability when social norms, values, and security concerns constrain their implementation.

By applying Meadows’ system archetypes, the paper identifies key governance traps in space sustainability, including the tragedy of the commons, resistance to external influence, and the pursuit of false goals. It argues that resilience can be strengthened by rebuilding feedback loops between actions and consequences, redefining collective goals, and prioritising unified governance frameworks over fragmented regimes. Ultimately, the paper contends that lessons from Earth’s sustainability failures and successes must inform space governance if outer space is to remain a resilient, equitable, and usable environment for future generations.

Send message to Author

Short abstract

This paper offers a feminist reimagining of the futures of AI in astrobiology. Combining philosophy, critical theory, and speculative fiction, 'alliance astrobiology' envisions futures of human-AI transformation made possible by an active embrace of epistemic diversity in both humans and machines.

Long abstract

This paper offers a feminist reimagining of the futures of AI in astrobiology: the study of the origin, distribution, and evolution of life in the universe. The integration of AI in astrobiology has redefined the form and structure of knowledge production in this arena, transforming understandings of the cosmos through the interplay of human and machine knowledges. This paper seeks to ascertain the limits of this transformation when the field is envisioned through the lens of a non-biocentric feminist epistemology. From this perspective, epistemic evolution occurs when divergent forms of knowledges are brought into contact. In the era of AI, this demands not only an embrace of peripheralised human knowledges, but an embrace of the epistemic powers of the machine, an inhuman knower that expands access to reality through computational methods. This paper unifies feminist philosophy and critical theory with speculative fiction to envision 'alliance astrobiology': alternative futures in which the unification of divergent forms of human and machine knowledges are embraced to transform what the human can become. The task is not only to speculate on the possibilities of feminist technofutures, but to use such visions as a novel site for reflection, to critically analyse the architectures of inclusion and exclusion that characterise astrobiology today.

Send message to Author

Short abstract

Humanity is set to return to the Moon, and eventually onto Mars and beyond. To achieve this, the extraction and use of space resources will be essential. This paper examines how space resources can be used to ensure sustainability and resilience both in space and on Earth.

Long abstract

In the coming years, humanity is set to return to the Moon and begin to establish a long-term permanent presence. To successfully achieve this, the identification, extraction, processing, and use of lunar resources to be used in-situ on the Moon will be essential. This paper examines how lunar resources can be used in a sustainable and resilient way, the role of circularity and resource recycling on the Moon, and how achievements on the lunar surface could help to create a more sustainable and resilient Earth. Following this, the paper explores future scenarios of humanity’s exploration of the solar system using the Moon as a stepping stone, in particular, examining what sustainability and resilience mean in the context of future human missions to Mars and other solar system bodies. Consideration is given to possible outcomes for Earth-space sustainability from the mining of asteroids for their resources and the creation of a ‘space resources economy’. Causal connections regarding sustainability and resilience are examined across the three domains of: Earth, Moon, Deep Space, which informs a framework for ensuring that future space exploration is sustainable and resilient.

Send message to Author

Short abstract

Institutions in technoscience act as massive bodies that bend social time. In Europe’s launcher ecosystem, large programs stabilize slower but durable futures, while startups move faster yet remain fragile—showing how institutional scale curvatures temporal horizons and governs technological futures

Long abstract

Gravity is not a force but an effect of mass curving spacetime. Drawing on this analogy for outer space governance, this paper argues that time in technoscientific systems does not simply pass, but bends, and institutions act as active time generators (Felt, 2025), employing spatiotemporal practices as governance infrastructures that distort the sociotechnical space–time continuum in which technological futures are organized.

Large organizations operate as “massive bodies” that bend the tempospatial fabric around them and as actors move closer to these institutions, temporal horizons stretch, decision cycles slow, and certain futures become gravitationally stabilized. Scale and power thus reorganize speed, urgency, and the location of the future within technoscientific systems.

The argument is illustrated through Europe’s launcher ecosystem. Start-ups involved in the European Launcher Challenge promise rapid, cost-efficient development, yet their futures are often framed as precarious or “doomed to die.” Institutional programs such as ArianeNext and Themis occupy a different temporal orbit: development cycles lengthen, decision-making slows, and futures stabilize within the gravity wells of infrastructure, funding, and industrial architectures. Size thus becomes a temporal variable—microlaunchers move quickly but remain temporally fragile, while heavy launchers produce slower but more durable futures.

The paper conceptualizes this dynamic as the relativity of social time. Temporal governance emerges not merely as the management of time but as the curvature of collective space–time coproduced by institutional scale, distributing actors across different temporal horizons within the same technoscientific field, introducing a tempospatial dimension to analyses of futuring practices and infrastructure.

Send message to Author

Short abstract

As lunar activity increases, safety zones are emerging as a practical means of preventing harmful interference. This paper asks when they remain lawful tools of coordination, and when they begin to function as exclusionary mechanisms around scarce and strategically valuable lunar sites.

Long abstract

Plans for sustained lunar activity are forcing an old legal vocabulary into a more concrete setting. Once several actors are operating on the lunar surface at the same time, “due regard” can no longer remain an abstract obligation. Safety zones have emerged as one way of translating it into practice. Presented in the Artemis Accords as a means of avoiding harmful interference, they offer a way to manage proximity around landing sites, infrastructure, and surface operations. Yet they also raise a harder question: when does coordination begin to resemble exclusion, especially where access is uneven and certain lunar sites carry exceptional scientific or strategic value?

This paper reads Articles I, II, IX, XI and XII of the OST alongside the Moon Agreement, NASA’s Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analysis, the Hague Building Blocks, ATLAC discussions, and debates on cislunar security. It asks what makes a safety zone appear to be a legitimate measure of coordination rather than an early form of enclosure. My argument is that the problem lies in the design. A temporary zone, tied to a demonstrable hazard, notified, and open to consultation, is easier to defend under due regard. A zone that is vague or attached to scarce sites begins to test the line between protection and exclusion. Framed this way, such zones are part of a wider struggle over how the Moon will be shared, and over whether future lunar governance will be organised around coexistence and stewardship, or around priority for those who arrive first.