Description du poste
This article was created by Forethought. Read the full article on our website.
AbstractIn this piece, we ask whether a first mover could prevent others from accessing outer space, or at least raise the cost of doing so. If this is possible, by force or otherwise, they would have a way to cement their lead.
We define two broad kinds of lock-out: soft and hard.
By soft lock-out, we mean capturing scarce, non-substitutable assets and denying them to rivals, which raises their cost of entry into the space industry. We think this could help a first mover entrench their early lead, making it more difficult for followers to catch up. In particular, the main strategies we consider are excluding rivals from orbital bands by occupying them with data centres or claiming the best sites on the Moon. We estimate a first mover could plausibly make a comparable presence in space ~$49–73B more expensive, a premium of roughly 5–7% on a ~$1 trillion build, which is small given the stakes. Soft lock-out falls far short of completely excluding later entrants from the space industry.
By hard lock-out, we mean using force to prevent followers from accessing space. The mechanism we focus on is space-based interceptors that destroy rockets as they launch from Earth. Using existing launch and hardware costs, we estimate a first mover could set up a system to attempt hard lock-out with interceptors for ~$150–390B (~$0.6–1.6T on a 20-year horizon) sized against today’s fixed launch sites. These costs are accessible to the US, which is already pursuing a similarly capable system for missile defence (estimated at ~$1.2T over a 20-year horizon).
Rivals could respond by overwhelming the interceptors with rapid launches, destroying them with anti-satellite weapons, or threatening war on Earth. If they can maintain lock-out while supporting the development of a space industry into an industrial explosion, then they could eventually outgrow the world and achieve a decisive strategic advantage. Overal