Beyond the Pale Blue Dot.

A short discourse on exploring strange new heritage implications of our Anthropocene on planetary bodies far, far, away to celebrate humankind’s latest achievement – Artemis II.  

“Orbital space is now an organically evolving cultural landscape formed by the interaction of human and environmental processes” (Gorman, 2005a, p. 2)

Space, our final frontier, is the inspiration behind some of humankinds most fantastical myths and stories. The fascination Homo sapiens have had and continue to have with the cosmos is evidenced the world over and across civilisations through space and time. From a circa 2,500 BCE stone arrangement on the Salisbury Plains in England to the painted cave walls and ceilings of celestial and spiritual beings connecting people, land, and sky found throughout Aboriginal Australian cave art our obsession with the cosmos has been demonstrated over tens of millennia (Darvill, 2022, Norris and Hamacher, 2010). The study of these connections has even inspired the creation of a sub-category of archaeological research – Archaeoastronomy. When extraterrestrial objects fell from the sky they were chiseled and carved and became sacred objects which were gifted to royalty (Comelli et al., 2016). Stonehenge, Gabarnmang, King Tutankhamun’s meteoric dagger are but a few examples of our predilection for the cosmos. Yet more than space providing inspiration, stories, and the occasional material good, Homo sapiens have now reached a capability once only dreamed about – the ability to travel beyond the confines of Earth’s atmosphere. Where we cannot or choose not to send human representation, we send robotic agents and/or other machines furnished with imaging and scientific testing equipment to explore on our behalf and at our behest. 

Our continuing work in space now requires a critical reconsideration of the definitions of heritage and any protections that may accompany this notion. Heritage advisory body, the International Committee on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) has begun investigating the cultural significance of our foray into space. In 2023, the International Scientific Committee on Aerospace Heritage (ISCoAH), an ICOMOS subcommittee was established extending heritage research beyond Earth’s atmosphere to include orbital and planetary bodies like the Moon (ISCoAH, 2023). This essay explores the potential cultural value of in-situ space debris and presents potential challenges and implications for managing current and future heritage programs as they relate to the conservation and the archaeology of space debris.  

Background: 

In evaluating the book by archaeologist and space enthusiast, Dr. Alice Gorman, Dr Space Junk vs the Universe (2019) for this essay, Gorman recants the nostalgia of her childhood and the awe she experienced watching the Apollo 11 Moon landing in July 1969 with her schoolmates. She describes how nearly 40 students crowded into a classroom to watch the black and white broadcast of Neil Armstrong’s first footsteps on the Moon (Gorman, 2019, p. 22). My experiences witnessing space travel are somewhat different as I was raised in the 1980s and space travel had become almost commonplace with launches occurring rather frequently. Although I recall the early tests of NASA’s space shuttles, I am also reminded of traumatic events. In 1986, at the age of 12, I crowded into a classroom with maybe 30 or 40 of my schoolmates. Our teacher had set up a television monitor for the event which sat looking back at a surprisingly quiet group of students. I recall wondering if this excitement was in any way similar to the excitement experienced by the world in 1969, when Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the Moon. As the broadcast began, we waited and watched as the Space Shuttle Challenger, (STS-51-L) prepared for lift-off with Christa McAuliffe, a civilian teacher from New Hampshire. It was exciting to see a civilian and a teacher go into space. It was a first for America and the world. Seventy-two seconds after launch, we collectively held our breath as Challenger streamed across the screen trailing a pillar of white exhaust behind it and then confusion and deep sadness at the seventy third second (NASA, 2019) as the pillar fractured into several directions across the television screen. Silence was followed by children and teachers weeping as a member of the educational community with her space faring colleagues disintegrated before our eyes. 

As baby boomers might recall where they were when Apollo 11 landed and Neil Armstrong stepped onto the surface of our nearest natural satellite, when members of my generation are asked where they were when Challenger exploded, most can recall in finite detail their surroundings in those moments. Space for every generation is as much visceral as it is cathartic.

S86-30460 (9 Jan. 1986) – NASA’s STS-51L crew members. Photo: JSC.

Territorial Implications: In International Waters  

In considering the cultural, scientific, and even monetary value of space debris, several variables need to be factored. These artefacts occupy a place uncontrolled by any government and are unlike typical artefacts archaeologists work with on Earth. The International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) ‘Cosmic Study’ on Protecting the Environment of Celestial Bodies published a perspective paper designed to engage experts around the globe on a number of issues related to the proliferation of space debris (Rettberg et al., 2010). The study notes the challenges that exist and lack of political will to resolve or even manage private and public space exploration. The study also notes the parallels of the United Nations Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) and its potential use as a template for future space policy (Rettberg et al., 2010, p. 4). So, what does an inhospitable environment at the southern end of our globe have to do with the infinite depths of space? 

The ATS (1959), in its opening states that, “Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purpose” and acknowledges “…the substantial contribution to scientific knowledge resulting from international cooperation in scientific investigation…” and the importance of “…freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica…with the interests of science and the progress of all mankind” (Conference on Antarctica, 1959). Twelve countries ratified and signed the Antarctic Treaty on 1 December 1959. As the Cold War between the United States and Russia loomed on through the second half of the 20^th century, space treaties using similar language to that ATS, such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (Lele, 2017), were established to prevent territorial claims being made over space. These are now being questioned and debated as private space exploration has become a reality and a genuine desire to keep space recognised as an environment for peaceful endeavours continues to persist (Gorman, 2019, p. 18, Solomou, 2013). These studies and treaties now contribute to the growing discourse on the cultural and heritage importance of the various material remains that have been sent into space or to other planetary bodies in our solar system, something the ISCoAH (2023) aims to address. Considering for a moment important heritage monuments and sites that exist within the borders of nations, their administration and maintenance are conducted in a way that generally fits with the Articles set out in the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, 2013). 

One Small Step Right Up: Burra Charter

The duty of care nations agree to administer in the upkeep of monuments and sites is in large part culturally driven, and the Burra Charter accounts for this in Articles 2 and 3 (Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, 2013). What and how one nation or community might choose to preserve a monument or site for tourism or protection in general might be very different from another. For example, the decision to preserve a site in-situ, freezing it in its current state of disrepair versus completely refurbishing it to appear as it once did are very much community and culturally influenced decisions (Mason and Avrami, 2002, p. 14, Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, 2013). Interpreting and applying the Burra Charter to space artefacts currently lacks a political commitment from nations and leaders. It represents a logistical challenge by which there currently is no real solution due to the inaccessibility of space for ~99.99+ per cent of the eight billion plus people who reside on Earth. The privilege of space travel is reserved for a handful of countries that have the means to invest in programs and to a limited number of private enterprises that primarily launch communication satellites or have ventured into sending civilians on tourism-like missions into orbit. For the time being, the Apollo 11 landing site is probably safe from human touch, but at the rate our species is developing new technologies, a day where tourists come face-to-face with our past initial lunar conquest, is certainly conceivable. 

Neil Armstrong’s first step onto the lunar surface may still be there. Of course, it is also possible that footprint was blown away when the lunar module blasted off from the Moon’s surface to deliver the astronauts back to the service module in orbit. An orbital survey by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) launched in 2009 has confirmed that the US flag, planted a short distance from the lunar module, was no longer standing and is assumed to have been knocked over during launch (Gorman, 2019, pps. 90, 93). This investigation was based on the evidence of a ‘shadow survey’ where dark shadows cast across the lunar surface of the remaining equipment were imaged and measured to determine the state of the Apollo 11 landing site (Gorman, 2019). Should decisions be made that involve the protection of the lunar landing site deep questions on logistics must then be tackled. The range of the Burra Charter can only be effective within a state or territory that agrees to uphold its articles – put another way, the Charter is only as strong as the paper it is written on. In modern times, this is evidenced by the Taliban military destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan (Francioni and Lenzerini, 2003). This ideological driven destruction garnered world attention and mass demands for sanctions and charges of criminal liability were strongly encouraged by members of various communities including, heritage, archaeological, historical, religious, and political (Francioni and Lenzerini, 2003). Although an extreme example, there currently is little stopping a private enterprise from sending a robot to our planetary neighbour, the Moon, to gather material remains from the original lunar landing site to deliver back to Earth to sell to a collector or museum.

Lost In Space: Cultural Importance & Policy Ramifications

“The Anthropocene is more than just a new geological era: the archaeologist’s lens reveals it to be a cosmological phenomenon” (Gorman, 2014).

Today, we are living the dreams of Egyptian Pharaohs with the ability to physically send human remains into space – a chance for the dead to reach the stars and interact with the gods. In the process of launching technologies, equipment, and even human remains, we are redistributing various geological and chemical elements from our planet into the cosmos thus altering the elemental fabric of our own planet (Gorman, 2014, pps. 89-90). So, what of the cultural importance of our anthropogenic, earthly endeavours in space? In the routine of launching spacecraft or satellites into space, audiences may only witness a portrayed simplicity where the complexity is masked by the media camera, from outdated vehicle construction and assembly buildings, destroyed launch pads to discarded rocket stages, as well as the various fractured metal elements that have sheared off after launch or become locked in a decaying orbit, the result is a trail of high-tech trash often not considered. (Gorman, 2005b, Gorman, 2011). Yet these elements are part of a “terrestrial antecedent” that it is suggested, require a cultural landscape approach as a means to protecting and/or preserving them (Gorman, 2009, p. 87). 

Although most spacecraft and equipment may seem like nothing more than utilitarian devices designed solely to carry out specific processes, the reality is that their designs have been influenced to a large degree by human art and culture (Gorman, 2015). Consider the shape, design, and colours used to create the components of the Apollo 11 mission, the rocket stages and capsule designs, or the Mars rovers that have travelled over the Martian landscape many of which were arguably inspired by late 19^th and early 20^th century artists (Triscott, 2016). There are thus ‘deeper cultural questions to be explored and that fit within the study of human behaviour and human interaction with technology’ (Walsh and Gorman, 2021, p. 1, Gorman, 2005b). These machines serve as a reflection of who we are as a species. Approximately 105 objects now stand as either monuments or a scattering of debris or that have been vapourised in the atmosphere or on the surfaces of: the Moon, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Phobos, Titan, Eros, Itokawa, Ryugu, Bennu, Dimorphos, Comet 9P/Tempel 1, and Comet 67P/Curyumov-Gerasimenko, (Wikipedia contributors, 2023, Gorman, 2016).

These landings on extraterrestrial, planetary bodies and asteroids in our solar system are a testament to human innovation, besides being demonstrations of military might, many stand as strong cultural symbols that demonstrate scientific, engineering, and technological development. It is also important to note that these accomplishments are not only within the competitive purview of just the United States or Russia (the former USSR) (Gorman, 2009). Interplanetary landings, some successful and some not, have been made independently by; the United States, Russia (USSR), Japan, China, India, France, United Kingdom, Israel, Germany, and collaboratively through the European Space Agency (ESA) (Wikipedia contributors, 2023, Gorman, 2016, p. 4). To date there are 1,199 listed World Heritage Sites across 168 states. In the event that interplanetary landings, were recognised for their cultural and heritage importance they could very well account for nearly 10% of the World Heritage list (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2023). These extraterrestrial landings of course do not include the orbital missions, the largest currently being the International Space Station or the Voyager spacecraft that are now venturing into interstellar space (Gorman and O’Leary, 2013, p. 410).

In A Galaxy Far, Far, Away: Logistics

The logistical implications of protecting our cultural heritage in space are simply prohibitively costly and generally unenforceable. The various governing bodies that do currently participate in space faring activities would need to lean on ethics and a greater moral authority as arguments to appeal to human sensibility as a means of ensuring places present on planetary bodies remain protected. Then there is the question of necessity, and/or practicality in suggesting the protection of such places. Consider for a moment an example from a popular science fiction novel – The Martian, a book by author Andy Weir (2014), and which later became a film starring Matt Damon. Damon’s character, Mark Watney, in order to survive, accesses past equipment left on the Martian surface from actual previous Martian missions in order to save himself. Although, the story of survival against-all-odds makes for an entertaining read and watch, would readers have responded so well if the fictional character had harvested equipment from the now sacred location of the first lunar landing. In reality, the cost of maintaining important space artefacts is expensive. In the case of the International Space Station, the current annual maintenance cost ranges between $3 and $4 billion USD (NASA Office of Inspector General, 2018).

There is currently no plan to protect the lunar landing site(s).

Shhhh, It’s A State Secret: Human Innovations 

It is assumed that many of the early spacecraft that remain on the Moon, Mars, or other planetary bodies, contain military-grade secrets. Although no detailed records exist, due to the sensitive nature of the payloads, it is certainly reasonable to assume considering the early space race occurred between the US and USSR during the Cold War (Gorman, 2016, pps. 4-5). Admittance of military intervention and involvement in space would also lead to frustration of political relationships in that the use of space is intended for peaceful purposes (Lele, 2017).

Numerous theorists contend that dominance over space represents an important strategic political and military advantage, significantly influencing the outcome of conflicts on Earth (Gopalaswamy and Kampani, 2014). They view space as a contemporary frontier, akin to the role air power played in the early twentieth century— currently devoid of weaponry but holding substantial potential for future offensive and defensive operations (Gopalaswamy and Kampani, 2014, p. 41). Consequently, there is widespread belief that the militarisation of space is inevitable.

Ja’chuq (Klingon): Discussion

To many Archaeologists, the work and study of Archaeology is about uncovering the past and searching for connecting points to our present. Further, it is also about preserving a past that is anything but static but instead is fluid and in an everchanging state of flux as historians and archaeologists uncover material remains, and cultural artefacts that inevitably alter the subjective dialogue we have with our past. Our exploration of space adds a new dynamic element as we struggle today to attach meaning to past missions. The exploration of space, both in terms of its historical cultural significance and contemporary forays beyond Earth’s atmosphere, presents a multifaceted landscape rich with stories, artifacts, and potential challenges. The enduring human fascination with the cosmos is evidenced throughout our history, as seen in ancient stone arrangements, cave paintings, and the symbolic significance attached to extraterrestrial objects.

As Homo sapiens venture into space, the integration of heritage considerations becomes increasingly critical. The establishment of the International Scientific Committee on Aerospace Heritage (ISCoAH) in 2023 underscores the recognition that our activities beyond Earth hold a cultural importance that crosses borders. This recognition prompts a reevaluation of heritage definitions and protective measures, particularly as the remnants of human space exploration, from robotic agents to discarded rocket stages, become part of this cosmic cultural landscape.

The comparison between the Antarctic Treaty System and Outer Space Treaty reveals a potential framework for addressing territorial and cultural implications in space. However, the challenges are substantial, given the lack of political will, the growing issue of mass proliferation of space debris, and the evolving landscape of private space exploration. The existing Burra Charter, designed for terrestrial heritage, faces limitations in its application to space artifacts due to the unique challenges posed by the vastness and inaccessibility of space.

The cultural importance of space endeavours extends beyond the material artifacts to the very act of exploration itself. The reshaping of the Earth’s elemental fabric through space exploration, the artistic influences on spacecraft design, and the global significance of interplanetary landings highlight the intertwined nature of culture, technology, and human achievement. However, the logistical and financial implications of protecting space artifacts raise questions about practicality and necessity. With the cost of maintaining structures like the International Space Station being in the billions annually, the preservation of extraterrestrial sites becomes a complex challenge. The potential presence of military-grade secrets on Cold War era spacecraft adds layers of complexity, as acknowledging such details could strain international relations and contradict the intended peaceful use of space. The exploration of space introduces a new chapter in the definition and preservation of cultural heritage. As we grapple with the evolving dynamics of space activities, the discourse on the cultural and heritage importance of space debris, lunar landing sites, and interplanetary exploration must engage a global community to ensure responsible and meaningful stewardship of our cosmic legacy.

References

AUSTRALIA ICOMOS INCORPORATED 2013. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Australia.

COMELLI, D., D’ORAZIO, M., FOLCO, L., EL-HALWAGY, M., FRIZZI, T., ALBERTI, R., CAPOGROSSO, V., ELNAGGAR, A., HASSAN, H., NEVIN, A.,

PORCELLI, F., RASHED, M. G. & VALENTINI, G. 2016. The meteoritic origin of Tutankhamun’s iron dagger blade. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 51, 1301-1309.

CONFERENCE ON ANTARCTICA 1959. The Antarctic Treaty. In: SECRETARIAT OF THE ANTARCTIC TREATY (ed.). Washington, D.C.

DARVILL, T. 2022. Stonehenge Mean Time: Synchronising Polity and Cosmology. Antiqvvs, 4, 9-14.

FRANCIONI, F. & LENZERINI, F. 2003. The Destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan and International Law. European Journal of International Law, 14, 619-651.

GOPALASWAMY, B. & KAMPANI, G. 2014. India and Space Weaponization: Why Space Debris Trumps Kinetic Energy Antisatellite Weapons as the Principal Threat to Satellites. India Review, 13, 40-57.

GORMAN, A. The Archaeology of Orbital Space.  Australian Space Science Conference, 2005a. RMIT University Melbourne, 338-357.

GORMAN, A. 2005b. The cultural landscape of interplanetary space. Journal of Social Archaeology, 5, 85-107.

GORMAN, A. 2009. The Cultural Landscape of Space. In: ANN DARIN GARRISON & O’LEARY, B. L. (eds.) The Handbook of Space Engineering, Archaeology, and Heritage. CRC Press.

GORMAN, A. 2011. The sky is falling: How Skylab became an Australian icon. Journal of Australian Studies,35, 529-546.

GORMAN, A. 2015. Robot avatars: The material culture of human activity in Earth orbit. In: B.L. O’LEARY & CAPELOTTI, P. J. (eds.) Archaeology and heritage of the human movement into space. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

GORMAN, A. 2016. Culture on the Moon: Bodies in Time and Space. In: ARCHAEOLOGIES: JOURNAL OF THE WORLD ARCHAEOLOGICAL

CONGRESS (ed.) World Archaeological Congress.

GORMAN, A. 2019. Dr Space Junk vs the Universe: Archaeology and the Future, Sydney, AUSTRALIA, NewSouth Publishing.

GORMAN, A. C. 2014. The Anthropocene in the Solar System. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 1, 87-91.

GORMAN, A. C. & O’LEARY, B. L. 2013. Chapter 29: The Archaeology of Space Exploration. In: GRAVES-BROWN, P., HARRISON, R. & PICCINI, A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World. London: Oxford University Press.

ISCOAH. 2023. New ICOMOS ISC on Aerospace Heritage [Online]. ICOMOS. Available: https://www.icomos.org/en/89–english–categories/home/121302new–icomos–isc–aerospace–heritage[Accessed 16 Sep 2023].

LELE, A. 2017. Fifty Years of the Outer Space Treaty: Tracing the Journey, Pentagon Press New Delhi.

MASON, R. & AVRAMI, E. 2002. Heritage values and challenges of conservation planning. Management planning for archaeological sites, 13-26.

NASA. 2019. Remembering Space Shuttle Challenger [Online]. NASA.gov: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Available: https://www.nasa.gov/image–article/remembering–space–shuttle–challenger/ [Accessed 9 November 2023].

NASA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 2018. NASA’s Management and

Utilization of the International Space Station IG-18-021. In: OFFICE OF AUDITS (ed.). National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NORRIS, R. P. & HAMACHER, D. W. 2010. Astronomical symbolism in Australian Aboriginal rock art. arXiv preprint arXiv:1009.4753.

RETTBERG, P., HOFMANN, M. & WILLIAMSON, M. 2010. The IAA Cosmic Study ‘Protecting the Environment of Celestial Bodies’. 38th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, 38, 4.

SOLOMOU, A. 2013. The Development of International Law Regarding the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Gray’s Inn Student Law Journal, 9-35.

TRISCOTT, N. 2016. Transmissions from the Noosphere: Contemporary Art and Outer Space. The Palgrave Handbook of Society, Culture and Outer Space, 414-444.

UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE. 2023. World Heritage List [Online]. UNESCO.org: UNESCO. Available: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/ [Accessed 11 November 2023].

WALSH, J. & GORMAN, A. 2021. A Method for Space Archaeology Research: The International Space Station Archaeological Project. Antiquity, 95, 1-13.

WEIR, A. 2014. The Martian, Random House.

WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTORS. 2023. List of landings on extraterrestrial bodies [Online]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_landings_on_extraterrestrial_bodies&oldid=1181111379 [Accessed 11 Nov 2023].