Synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Green and digital transition is required to ensure that social-ecological systems on planet Earth remain sustainable and resilient while its population grows. Legislative initiatives such as the 2022 U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (U.S. Congress 2022) and the 2019 EU Green Deal (European Commission 2019) will channel billions of dollars over the coming years to climate and energy policies, many of which rely on extensive electrification and digitization of societies. The so-called Draghi report, for example, estimates that to digitalize and decarbonize the economy, investment in Europe will have to increase by approximately 600 billion euros per year during 2025–2030 (Draghi 2024). On one hand, a large share of the future green and smart infrastructures will depend on satellite-based technologies (Vinuesa et al. 2020, EEAS 2021), indicating that the near-Earth space^[1] where satellites orbit our planet^[2] is a vital component of sustainability. On the other hand, the expansion of digital infrastructures to this near-Earth space threatens the resilience or terrestrial infrastructures by exposing them to the physical conditions in space that influence technology and human health (collectively defined as space weather), and the high-impact low-frequency (HILF) extreme space weather events (Fry 2012). By physical conditions in space, we mean the highly dynamic space weather within the near-Earth space.

Sustainability and resilience sometimes contradict each other. In many policy documents, sustainability is understood as increased efficiency of resource use, circular economy, and system-level optimization. Yet these features often run counter to resilience, which refers to designed diversity, redundancy, and connectivity that enable societies to absorb disturbance, reorganize, and maintain their viability over time (Elmqvist et al. 2019). Meeting the global challenges of the coming decades will require transformative solutions that are not only sustainable but also resilient. A key overlooked contradiction between sustainability and resilience exists between green and digital transition solutions on Earth and the expanding use of near-Earth space. Green and digital infrastructures for sustainability increasingly rely on satellite technologies, which however render such infrastructures vulnerable to HILF extreme space physical conditions that threaten the lives and livelihoods of large populations globally. The contradiction poses a dilemma for green and digital transition, with implications for space policy.

In space policy, sustainable use of space predominantly concerns satellite orbits, and the main threat is considered to be space debris (ESA 2023; COPUOS 2007; Palmroth et al. 2021a). Little consideration has been given to the resilience of critical infrastructures dependent on the physical phenomena occurring in the near-Earth space. When considered from the viewpoint of resilience, the issue is not just space debris but the threats and opportunities that arise from interactions between the rapid expansion of space infrastructure and the dynamic variability of the physical near-Earth space. The build-up of green and digital infrastructure on Earth potentially constrains its own deployment through tight operational coupling with the contingencies of near-Earth space dynamics. For the benefits of green and digital transition to materialize, a balanced assessment including resilience-based strategies for space utilization is needed.

Here we highlight critical threats to the resilience of green and digital transition by identifying rare but potentially catastrophic interactions between Earth’s infrastructures, space utilization, and the physical near-Earth space environment. We first depict green and digital transition from the perspective of space utilization. We then use a scenario technique including an extreme space weather event to identify the potential resilience threats resulting from the increasing dependence of terrestrial infrastructures on the precarious interactions between the physical space environment and space utilization. Because extreme space weather belongs to the HILF category of events, our analytical approach is a qualitative scenario technique rather than a quantitative risk assessment. The reliability of critical infrastructures can only be ensured when crisis scenarios match the experiences of reliability professionals from a variety of critical cases (Roe and Schulman 2008). Because our focus is on the threats to terrestrial resilience caused by increasing reliance on space utilization, we exclude from consideration many other important environmental problems caused by space technologies, such as increasing traffic to near-Earth orbits with rockets, its impact on natural resource use on Earth to build aeronautic infrastructures, and increasing pollution created by rocket fuel combustion.

Our analysis leads to two arguments: First, extreme space weather poses a serious threat to sustainability globally by constraining the deployment of green and digital technologies necessary to support humans in the Anthropocene.^[3] Therefore, second, we show that in addition to zero-waste space debris, political focus should incorporate the resilience implications of the dynamic space environment and the HILF events. We support these arguments by applying governance principles that have been found to enhance the resilience and reliability of critical infrastructures.

THE OPPORTUNITIES OF SPACE TECHNOLOGIES FOR TERRESTRIAL SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainable development is often conceptualized in terms of three intersecting dimensions: environment, economy, and society (WCED 1987). The framework has been criticized for the dimensions being incommensurable and contradictory (Redclift 1987, Lélé 1991) and lacking in systemic thinking (McPhearson et al. 2021), most importantly because aggregate economic growth globally has been shown to threaten ecological viability (Jackson 2009, Hickel 2019). We do not delve in these debates but use the dimensions to highlight the environmental, economic, and societal opportunities that space technologies create for a green transition toward sustainability.

From an environmental point of view, space technologies are a key support infrastructure for digital technologies that can in turn catalyze green transitions. Space-based monitoring and tracking can provide real-time information for the circular economy. The concept of “Digital Twins of the Earth” has been proposed to generate actionable intelligence based on simulation and forecasting to tackle global change challenges and advance the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Nativi et al. 2021). Key sectors potentially benefiting from space technologies include agriculture through more accurate application of feed, water, energy, fertilizers, and pesticides; energy management through improved monitoring and tracking; and mobility and transport through improved traffic flow optimization (Muench et al. 2022).

Recent years have witnessed an exponential increase in the economic use of space, as evidenced in the number of commercially motivated satellite launches (ESA 2023). According to the Space Foundation (Space Foundation 2022), the global space economy valued at 469 billion dollars in 2022 grew 9% from the previous year, with similar annual prospects in the future. Many companies are interested in the space-borne economy because space provides a global platform, making the space-borne business inherently scalable that reaches not only the local customers, but also the vast crowds in other countries. Further, the range of customers that utilize space-borne businesses is variable, including individuals, governments, manufacturers, and other businesses, making revenue more resilient than in businesses relying on narrow customer categories. Access to space has changed, and the New Space Economy is increasingly utilizing more cost-efficient off-the-shelf technology, making space more affordable to a larger range of companies (OECD 2019). Furthermore, it is possible that acting in space earns media presence for companies that are also competing in the more mundane business sectors.

Space utilization supports social sustainability through the numerous societal functions that depend on space or space-based data. Satellite signals are used in numerous societal functions (Olla 2009, OECD 2019), which require broadcasting, communications, positioning, navigation, timing, weather and climate monitoring, Earth observation, and defense applications (the list is non-exhaustive). The societal dependency on space-based data and satellite signals will increase toward the future (Vinuesa et al. 2020, EEAS 2021). In addition, critical ground-based infrastructures that depend on space weather are numerous, the most important of which are power grids (Pulkkinen et al. 2005) because electricity is a key critical commodity in the supply chain, used by many other functions.

The opportunities of expanding use of space should not blind us from its negative environmental, economic, and social impacts. For example, the negative environmental impacts of rocket launches include stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change (e.g., Ryan et al. 2022). Although the present contribution of rocket launches to ozone loss represents only a few percent of the total anthropogenic contribution, the projected trends in future launches make the contribution comparable to that of the banned ozone-depleting substances. Particles emitted in stratosphere during launches and objects burning up during re-entry to Earth’s atmosphere cool the lower atmosphere in unpredictable magnitudes and locations, making the technology an uncontrollable geoengineering experiment (Miraux 2022). Space debris is a negative economic externality, because it decreases the utilizable orbit space and harms functioning satellites in collisions (Palmroth et al. 2021a). In the societal realm, companies responsible for satellite technologies have effectively normalized satellite surveillance by persuading users that to be seen and to be part of the new digital infrastructure overrides any concerns for anonymity and privacy. Widespread lack of awareness of the presence of an infrastructure of satellites enables companies providing satellite services to thrive unnoticed in the new business of unconscious surveillance technology (Lyons 2023).

THE CHALLENGES OF NEAR-EARTH SPACE DYNAMICS TO TERRESTRIAL RESILIENCE

Space technologies are an opportunity for sustainability because they support vital green and digital infrastructures on Earth. Yet near-Earth space events challenge the resilience of those infrastructures by potentially triggering a polycrisis. A polycrisis consists of a set of disparate shocks interacting in ways that make the whole more overwhelming than the sum of its parts (Tooze 2022). Studies of sustainability transitions and crisis management identify the parameters of resilience with scenario exercises that reveal the weaknesses of an interconnected system of human-environmental interactions (Swart et al. 2004, Roe and Schulman 2008). We will first outline key aspects of the near-Earth space dynamics and thereafter introduce the so-called Carrington event as a plausible trigger of a future polycrisis.

Near-Earth space dynamics

From the orbiting satellite’s point of view, the “space environment” consists of both space debris and the physical environment, i.e., space weather. There are many debris-related reports and papers (e.g., Muelhaupt et al. 2019) that characterize the current situation (see also Fig. 1), and hence we do not concentrate on the debris here but rather focus on the physical environment. We will first define space weather and then discuss the physical space weather mechanisms that threaten satellites. Last, we show how space weather is both a source and a sink for space debris, as space weather creates new debris and also makes the existing debris decay within Low Earth Orbit (LEO).

The near-Earth space is very dynamic, driven both by the Sun and the solar wind, as well as our own planetary magnetic field and the ionosphere (Borovsky 2018). Space weather is defined as the “conditions on the Sun and in the solar wind, magnetosphere, ionosphere, and thermosphere that can influence the performance and reliability of space-borne and ground-based technological systems” (Doherty et al. 2004:267). The purpose behind this definition is to demand for the predictability of the near-Earth space environment, not necessarily to be used as a driving force to understand the complex coupled physical near-Earth system.

Although many 24/7 operational space weather centers have been established recently,^[4] there are many outstanding phenomena within the near-Earth space that are currently unpredictable and not understood (Morley 2020). Perhaps one of the most important of these are substorms (McPherron 1979) that are explosive energy loading and unloading processes of the Earth’s magnetic domain, called the magnetosphere, resembling solar eruptions. Substorms can cause satellite loss (Loto’aniu et al. 2015), they are the main dynamics providing particles to the radiation belts (Friedel et al. 2002) causing hazards to satellites, and they are also the drivers of the largest Geomagnetically Induced Currents (GICs) that can trip ground-based electric power grids (Pulkkinen et al. 2003, 2005). Without a detailed specification of the space environment, the space weather services are guessing at best. To improve the characterization, basic scientific knowledge is needed.

Rather than being a passive, predictable mediator, space weather phenomena are both a source and sink for space debris. One of the most important factors in creating new debris are the Earth’s radiation belts, a region of trapped high-energy particles driven also by Earth’s own magnetospheric dynamics (Koskinen and Kilpua 2022). The radiation belts reach closest to the Earth’s surface within the South Atlantic Anomaly region that has caused losses of satellites (Witze 2016). Manufacturers are regularly optimizing satellite structure and shielding to account for the variable radiation conditions (Horne and Pitchford 2015). The most common radiation-related satellite anomalies include surface charging, internal charging, aging, and single event upsets (Gubby and Evans 2002). Further, substorms cause malfunctions and operational problems (Rosen 1976), and even loss (Loto’aniu et al. 2015). If the satellites are permanently lost on orbit because of the harsh radiation conditions or other space weather phenomena, they obviously increase the amount of the existing debris.

On orbit, the only natural mechanism providing friction to the object in space (satellites and debris particles) is the atmosphere, and hence objects on very high altitudes (like at the geostationary orbit, GEO) do not decay naturally. Because much of the potentially lethal orbital debris on LEO is located between 600 and 1200 km altitude (Muelhaupt et al. 2019), orbits at lower altitudes (Very Low Earth Orbit, VLEO) have become attractive for future launches (Berthoud et al. 2022). VLEO exists within the Lower thermosphere–Ionosphere (LTI) region, sometimes termed as the ignorosphere (Palmroth et al. 2021b), because measuring the region is very challenging. The lower parts at 80–200 km altitude are too low for satellites because of the large oxygen composition, but too high for many ground-based measurement tools. Therefore, many of the characteristics at LEO and VLEO are quantitatively unknown.

One major unknown factor within LTI is the Joule heating, caused by magnetospheric electric currents closure through the resistive ionospheric medium (Palmroth et al. 2021b). Enhanced Joule heating lifts the atmosphere, causing unexpected drag on space objects (Nwankwo et al. 2015). From the point of view of the debris, Joule heating can be thought both as a blessing and as a nightmare. The increased atmospheric drag is an efficient way to clean debris from the lower LTI altitudes, which is also a reason why VLEO attracts future launches. On the other hand, Joule heating during a minor space weather event caused the Starlink to lose 40 satellites in 2022 (Zhang et al. 2022). Joule heating is a great example of the unpredictable space environment: the phenomenon is understood qualitatively, but not quantitatively (Palmroth et al. 2021b). Before Joule heating can be quantitatively forecasted in time and space, predicting safe launch windows for LEO and VLEO satellites is extremely challenging even during relatively quiet conditions, as the Starlink example shows. Operational 24/7 monitoring of space weather will not improve the situation before basic scientific research, aided by measurements and modelling, finds the quantitative characteristics of when, where, and by how much the Joule heating will increase friction on satellite altitudes.

Scenario exercise of a Carrington storm

Sep 1, 1859, presented the largest geomagnetic storm in the measured history, as Richard Carrington recorded a bright flare at the Sun (Carrington 1859). Only 17.6 hours after Carrington’s observation, aurorae “so bright that one could read a newspaper by” were reported, later reaching the Caribbean (Green and Boardsen 2006). Ground magnetic field recordings reached unprecedented variations, and activity typical of large space weather events at higher latitudes were observed near the equator (Nevanlinna 2008). The most important critical infrastructure of the time, the telegraph, experienced malfunctions broadly (Boteler 2006).

The contemporary reports from 1859, when interpreted in light of today’s space physics, mean that the solar eruption reached Earth in less than 24 hours. The bright aurorae at the Caribbean indicate that the auroral zones moved almost to the equator from their typical location (e.g., Lapland, northern Canada, Siberia). Further, this means that the poleward region of the auroral zones, the polar caps, covered a large part of the globe. The impacts within the telegraph indicate large GICs, as the telegraph stations in 1859 were connected by wires. Large ground magnetic field variations at low latitudes mean that these regions, which are only seldom affected by space weather, will not escape the effects of a Carrington-scale storm. Although sophisticated measuring devices were not available, it is clear that the Carrington event was larger than anything that has occurred since.

Some attempts have been made to reconstruct the impacts of a Carrington-scale event on modern society. Power grids could face serious problems (Ebihara et al. 2021), leading to economic loss and effects on systems that are dependent on electricity (Oughton et al. 2017). Satellite impact could likewise be wide either by loss of revenue or having to replace malfunctioning spacecraft (Odenwald et al. 2006). Permanently or temporarily lost satellites cannot be commanded to make debris avoidance maneuvers, indicating that a Carrington-level storm could act as an infliction point to what is known as a Kessler syndrome (Kessler and Cour-Palais 1978), leading to collisions and large amounts of debris. Within the exceptionally large polar caps, electromagnetic signals could face scintillations, absorption, refractions, changes in frequency, phase, and amplitude (Baker et al. 2004). Storms of this scale occur with about 0.7% annual probability (Chapman et al. 2020), indicating a roughly once per 100 years recurrence rate. The latest near miss was detected in 2012 (Liu et al. 2014). In summary, the next Carrington-scale storm could cause global cuts in electricity, global flight re-routings, problems in all systems that utilize radio, radar, and satellite signals, and also failures of the satellites themselves, leading to debris and potential collisions. More research on this topic, as well as preparedness plans are needed before the next Carrington storm commences.

COPING WITH THE RESILIENCE CHALLENGE

Comparison of the threats of a Carrington-level storm with the opportunities of space utilization warrants serious investigation of the measures needed to secure societal and technological resilience on Earth. Here we develop only broad priority areas for future policy and research, inferred from state-of-the-art knowledge on the reliable management of critical infrastructures and the dynamics of near-Earth space environment. We propose a two-pronged approach to improve the resilience of future societies whose fates will partly be determined by what happens in near-Earth space. First, manage the uncertainties of near-Earth space environment by developing strategies for sociotechnical resilience and reliability on Earth. Second, reduce the uncertainties of space environment with basic research and space missions that improve understanding of the physical space environment.

Building sociotechnical resilience

A Carrington event can be characterized as an inevitable HILF event leading to a cascade of subsequent events, some of which are socially so unacceptable that they should be precluded by means of high reliability management. For example, weeks-long global cuts in electricity and communication services should simply not be allowed to happen (Roe and Schulman 2018). What are the principles for enhancing resilience and reliability in the critical parts of sociotechnical systems where disruptions are unacceptable? We select from the reliability and resilience literature those guidelines that are key during polycrises and categorize these principles under three domains of resilience: interconnected critical infrastructures, organizational resources, and governance and management.

Interconnected critical infrastructures

Space technologies are a global platform that increasingly interconnects individuals, governments, and businesses in vital functions such as communications, positioning, timing, and weather. These functions in turn interlink with numerous other technical infrastructures, such as electrical grids, water and wastewater systems, ground logistics, air and marine traffic control, and telecommunications networks. A major Carrington storm could seriously damage space-based data systems (Odenwald et al. 2006), the master hub for many of these interlinked infrastructures. To sustain the basic functions of at least the most critical infrastructures, a key preparedness measure is to identify in advance their shared control variables. Could a prolonged power outage, for example, take out an automated water pump that prevents the seepage of surface and groundwater to a maintenance tunnel that houses cabling for critical communications? A logical follow-up task is to map out in advance plausible scenarios for the cascading impacts of a disruption in interconnected infrastructures (Roe et al. 2016), as the threat of a difficult-to-manage polycrisis looms large.

Organizational resources

In addition to ensuring the resilience of interconnections, two important organizational characteristics have proven to increase the resilience of critical infrastructures. First, built-in slack in the critical organizational and technical parts of infrastructures enhances resilience. Slack refers to excess margins of unconsumed resources and time that are readily available in critical situations, such as maintenance personnel with access to repositories of spare parts to fix broken components. Second, redundant systems in the form of multiple and overlapping controls ensure the continuation of critical services. If a Carrington storm takes out electric power and communications, critical parts of infrastructure should permit their manual operation with alternative power sources (Rochlin 1998, Perrow 2000). Paradoxically, the organizational features of slack and redundancy, which act as an insurance safeguarding resilience, can subtly and unintentionally be wiped out by the efficiency measures undertaken in the name of green and digital transition to sustainability (Elmqvist et al. 2019).

Governance and management

Finally, a severe Carrington storm will likely trigger a polycrisis that no amount of advance preparedness planning or risk assessment can anticipate. Instead, the best expertise to handle the surprises resides in the improvisational management skills of those who encounter surprises on a regular basis. The key is to trust the reliability managers and secure their professional standing (Roe and Schulman 2008). At the same time, expectations regarding what services can indeed be maintained after a major Carrington-scale storm should be realistic. By shutting down electric power and communications, the event strikes at the Achilles heel of governance and management of polycrisis: securing communications and figuring out the right balance between system control and social coherence (McChrystal et al. 2015, Comfort and Wang 2022).

Constantly updated communication of the Carrington event’s operational situation is a prerequisite for appropriate actions to sustain social and environmental resilience (McChrystal et al. 2015). After all, polycrisis emerges by virtue of tightly coupled linkages within a single infrastructure, across several infrastructures, and between interlinked infrastructures and the surrounding society. Yet good communication may be the first casualty of a Carrington-induced outage of electric power and communication channels. An absence of communications debilitates a key feature of the governance of extreme events, namely, the ability to search for an appropriate balance between the control of a damaged system by an external authority versus reliance on internal self-adjustment at community level to manage the system (Elmqvist et al. 2019). Finding the balance requires a search process, because nations and communities across the globe vary in their degree of social coherence, which has been found to facilitate self-adjustment: when social coherence increases, the exercise of external authority decreases; conversely, when social coherence decreases, the demand for external authority increases (Comfort and Wang 2022). The search process can be facilitated with continual investment in collective risk awareness and action-oriented preparedness exercises to cope with crises.

Improved understanding of the physical space environment

Our synthesis shows that the physical space environment is a key determinant of the resilience of green and digital transition. It is a lucky coincidence that there have been no Carrington-scale storms during the 20th century industrialization. Although the physical space environment is sometimes recognized as a factor in the sustainable use of space (SWF 2018), the practical actions that are planned or undertaken relate mainly to the large number of orbital debris (EU 2022, UN 2023), as if the debris were the only concern for sustainability. This is understandable, because the debris is the obvious material aspect to which we can apply the policy priorities of waste management: to prevent, to recycle, to dispose (UNEP 2015). However, from the orbiting satellite’s point of view, there are two factors that create the space environment: the environment consisting of space physical dynamics, and the orbital debris. A satellite may fly on an effectively clean orbit, in which case its environmental sphere consists of space weather, whereas for a littered orbit, the satellite operators must also consider the existing debris. For both cases, space missions and monitoring of the physical conditions in space are required to improve resilience.

Basic research and space missions

There is a significant gap between the speed of green and digital transition and the speed at which the capability to predict near-Earth space is developing. At the current level of investment to support EU’s climate policy ambition, the green and digital infrastructure will presumably be finalized around the 2050s (European Commission 2019). However, we can currently predict only moderate space weather and even that only approximately, and hence the scientific consensus calls for more basic research (Schrijver et al. 2015). Even if we did have sufficient prediction capability by the 2050s, to have it rigorously space weather proofed would be multiple times more expensive than currently envisaged. In contrast to terrestrial weather, space weather occurs in a larger volume of space, is measured by much fewer instruments, and is described by more complex physics requiring exascale supercomputing power to describe also the currently unpredictable processes (Palmroth et al. 2023).

To ensure sufficient prediction capability for safeguarding the green and digital infrastructure that is currently being developed, several new space physics missions should urgently be launched. Observations are key to understanding how the system works. However, the last time, e.g., the European Space Agency (ESA) launched a mission to improve understanding of the near-Earth space, was in 2000 (Escoubet et al. 2001), and no new science missions are currently in the pipeline. This has led to a situation where individual teams must gather their observations using nanosatellites (Palmroth et al. 2019) that are not comparable to large science missions in terms of data quality or open access capabilities.

In the ESA Science Programme, mission selection is based on a bottom-up pure scientific approach, so that space physics competes with all the fields that the directorate serves, including planetary and astronomy. As such, missions in a particular field are not guaranteed and it is not obvious how sustainability, resilience, and economic matters are considered in this selection (see, e.g., a recent call information^[5]). In other areas of ESA, such as the Earth Observation (EO) Programme, sustainability is becoming a key aspect (see EO strategy^[6]). However, EO covers only the very lowest altitudes where space weather plays a role. In NASA there are dedicated divisions looking at Planetary science, Earth science, Astronomy, and Heliophysics. Although this means that heliophysics missions compete within their own field, it still does not mean they are always focused on near-Earth space. In any case, to understand our near-Earth planetary environment, many more missions are needed than are planned. Selection boards should also consider the bigger picture, looking across discipline boundaries, and also consider the sustainability and resilience of our planet as secondary selection criteria.

Monitoring near-Earth space

Another way of increasing the number of scientific observations from the near-Earth space is to recognize our planetary neighborhood as part of our planet that needs to be monitored 24/7. This would open doors for operative data management from the near-Earth space, similarly as, e.g., the European Union Copernicus^[7] mission is monitoring vital planetary parameters from land mass to atmospheric composition. Upstream monitors like the ESA space weather mission Vigil^[8] will only be able to monitor the Sun and the solar wind characteristics, leaving the response within the magnetosphere-ionosphere system outside the observations. Vigil is a good start, but the near-Earth coupled response needs to be monitored and understood in high spatial resolution, and from inside the system and not from the solar wind. In fact, to reach skill factors of the terrestrial weather forecasts, the coupled solar wind–magnetosphere–ionosphere system should be monitored with multiple constellations, calling for international co-operation in terms of designing and building the observational platforms. A great example of this was the International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program in the 1990s (see, e.g., Kepko et al. 2024).

OUTLOOK

The proposals to build sociotechnical resilience and improve our understanding of the physical space environment point toward actionable next steps for research and policy communities (Table 1). First, plans for new green and digital infrastructures should be stress-tested against plausible crisis scenarios induced by near-Earth space events. The resilience of new interconnected infrastructures with shared control variables should be tested against cascading disruptions (Linkov et al. 2022). In practice, this means emphasizing risk assessments and contingency plans in the impact assessments and permitting procedures of new infrastructure projects.

Second, and as a corollary of stress testing, near-Earth space technologies should be defined as critical infrastructures, something most countries currently fail to do (Wark 2023). This is a global concern, because space technologies interconnect terrestrial infrastructures to an extent that raises the specter of global polycrisis (Järvensivu et al. 2021, Lawrence et al. 2022).

Third, basic research on space weather, supported by new space physics missions, is needed to improve space weather prediction. Today, orbital debris is being considered in multiple working groups, e.g., at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS^[9]). Space policy committees, starting from the UN COPUOS, should start to demand that also the space physical environment is observed, modeled, and eventually understood so that it can be forecast in the future. This would also increase the quality of basic science because the policy principles could be used as justifications to fund grant and mission proposals. Such has been the impact of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, for example.

Finally, monitoring and modeling of the physical space environment should be intensified. When the physical space environment is mentioned in current policy declarations outlining the sustainable use of space, the emphasis is in the need for 24/7 space weather monitoring capabilities (EU 2022), while some policy priorities also mention the need to prepare for the extreme space weather events (The White House 2021). None of the policies mention the need to monitor or model, or indeed to understand the physical space environment in connection with the sustainable use of space. Hence, from the sustainability sciences perspective, the current policies for the sustainable use of space are incomplete, because they fail to consider resilience.

Extreme near-Earth space events pose critical threats to the resilience of human environmental interaction in the Anthropocene. Ensuring a sustainable future for humanity requires that near-Earth space technologies are recognized as critical infrastructures. Measures to build resilience against planetary contingencies have long lead times and thus deserve the policy makers’ immediate attention.

__________

^[1] Near-Earth space means the very vicinity of Earth from about 100 km to about million km in each direction, where the Earth’s magnetic field connects and conveys physical phenomena to the ground.
^[2] Called orbital space.
^[3] The period of time during which human activities have had a significant impact on the global environment.
^[4] For example https://www.swpc.noaa.gov.
^[5] https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/call-for-missions-2021
^[6] https://nikal.eventsair.com/eo-science-strategy-review-workshop-2024/workshop-documents
^[7] https://sentinels.copernicus.eu/web/sentinel/copernicus
^[8] https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Vigil
^[9] https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html

LITERATURE CITED

Baker, D. N., E. Daly, I. Daglis, J. G. Kappenman, and M. Panasyuk. 2004. Effects of space weather on technology infrastructure. Space Weather 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2003SW000044

Berthoud, L., R. Hills, A. Bacon, M. Havouzaris-Waller, K. Hayward, J.-D. Gayrard, F. Arnal, and L. Combelles. 2022. Are very low Earth orbit (VLEO) satellites a solution for tomorrow’s telecommunication needs? CEAS Space Journal 14(4):609-623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12567-022-00437-0

Borovsky, J. E. 2018. The spatial structure of the oncoming solar wind at Earth and the shortcomings of a solar-wind monitor at L1. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 177:2-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.03.014

Boteler, D. H. 2006. The super storms of August/September 1859 and their effects on the telegraph system. Advances in Space Research 38(2):159-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2006.01.013

Carrington, R. C. 1859. Description of a singular appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 20(1):13-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/20.1.13

Chapman, S. C., R. B. Horne, and N. W. Watkins. 2020. Using the αα index over the last 14 solar cycles to characterize extreme geomagnetic activity. Geophysical Research Letters 47(3):e2019GL086524. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086524

Comfort, L., and W. J. Wang. 2022. Managing risk in dynamic conditions: emerging crises, changing technologies, and the collective capacity to learn. Public Administration Quarterly 46(4):359-383. https://doi.org/10.37808/paq.46.4.4

Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). 2007. Space debris mitigation guidelines. United Nations, Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UNGA Res A/RES/62/217

Cowardin, H., and A. Johnson, editors. 2023. NASA Orbital Debris, Quarterly News 27:4. https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/pdfs/ODQNv27i4.pdf

Doherty, P., A. J. Coster, and W. Murtagh. 2004. Space weather effects of October-November 2003. GPS Solutions 8(4):267-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-004-0109-3

Draghi, M. 2024. The future of European Competitiveness: Part B, In-depth analysis and recommendations. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/strengthening-european-competitiveness/eu-competitiveness-looking-ahead_en

Ebihara, Y., S. Watari, and S. Kumar. 2021. Prediction of geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) flowing in Japanese power grid for Carrington-class magnetic storms. Earth, Planets and Space 73(1):163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-021-01493-2

Elmqvist, T, E. Andersson, N. Frantzeskaki, T. McPhearson, P. Olsson, O. Gaffney, K. Takeuchi, and C. Folke. 2019. Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability 2(4):267- 273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1

Escoubet, C. P., M. Fehringer, and M. Goldstein. 2001. Introduction: The cluster mission. Annales Geophysicae 19(10/12):1197-1200. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-19-1197-2001

European Commission. 2019. The European Green Deal. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. https://eurlex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0002.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

European External Action Service (EEAS). 2021. Space embracing a changing world: green, digital, resilience & security. European External Action Service (EEAS), European Union, Brussels, Belgium. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/space-embracing-changing-world-green-digital-resilience-security_en

European Space Agency (ESA). 2023. ESA’s space environment report 2023. ESA, Paris, France. https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/ESA_s_Space_Environment_Report_2023

European Union (EU). 2022. An EU approach for space traffic management. European Commission, High representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. EU, Brussels, Belgium. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0355_EN.pdf

Friedel, R. H. W., G. D. Reeves, and T. Obara. 2002. Relativistic electron dynamics in the inner magnetosphere — a review. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 64(2):265-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(01)00088-8

Fry, E. K. 2012. The risks and impacts of space weather: policy recommendations and initiatives. Space Policy 28(3):180-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2012.06.005

Green, J. L., and S. Boardsen. 2006. Duration and extent of the great auroral storm of 1859. Advances in Space Research 38(2):130-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2005.08.054

Gubby, R., and J. Evans. 2002. Space environment effects and satellite design. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 64(16):1723-1733. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(02)00122-0

Hickel, J. 2019. The contradiction of the sustainable development goals: growth versus ecology on a finite planet. Sustainable Development 27(5):873-884. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1947

Horne, R. B., and D. Pitchford. 2015. Space weather concerns for all-electric propulsion satellites. Space Weather 13(8):430-433. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015SW001198

Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774338

Järvensivu, P., H. Räisänen, and J. I. Hukkinen. 2021. A simulation exercise for incorporating long-term path dependencies in urgent decision-making. Futures 132:102812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102812

Kepko, L., R. Nakamura, Y. Saito, A. Vourlidas, G. G. T. Taylor, C. H. Mandrini, X. Blanco-Cano, D. Chakraparty, I. A. Daglis, C. M. De Nardin, et al. 2024. Heliophysics great observatories and international cooperation in heliophysics: an orchestrated framework for scientific advancement and discovery. Advances in Space Research 73(10):5383-5405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2024.01.011

Kessler, D. J., and B. G. Cour-Palais. 1978. Collision frequency of artificial satellites: the creation of a debris belt. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 83(A6):2637-2646. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA06p02637

Koskinen, H., and E. Kilpua. 2022. Physics of Earth’s radiation belts: theory and observations. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82167-8

Lawrence, M., S. Janzwood, and T. Homer-Dixon. 2022. What is a polycrisis? And how is it different from a systemic risk? Cascade Institute, Royal Roads University, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. https://cascadeinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/What-is-a-global-polycrisis-v2.pdf

Linkov, I., B. D. Trump, J. Trump, G. Pescaroli, W. Hynes, A. Mavrodieva, and A. Panda. 2022. Resilience stress testing for critical infrastructure. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 82:103323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103323

Liu, Y. D., J. G. Luhmann, P. Kajdič, E. Kilpua, N. Lugaz, N. V. Nitta, C. Möstl, B. Lavraud, S. B. Bale, C. J. Farrugia, and A. B. Galvin. 2014. Observations of an extreme storm in interplanetary space caused by successive coronal mass ejections. Nature Communications 5(1):3481. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4481

Loto’aniu, T. M., H. J. Singer, J. V. Rodriguez, J. Green, W. Denig, D. Biesecker, and V. Angelopoulos. 2015. Space weather conditions during the Galaxy 15 spacecraft anomaly. Space Weather 13(8):484-502. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015SW001239

Lélé, S. M. 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Development 19(6):607-621. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(91)90197-P

Lyons, S. 2023 Satellite surveillance and the orbital unconscious. New Media & Society 27(2):914-930. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231187352

McChrystal, S. A., T. Collins, D. Silverman, and C. Fussell. 2015. Team of teams: new rules of engagement for a complex world. Portfolio Penguin, London, UK.

McPhearson, T., M. C. M. Raymond, N. Gulsrud, C. Albert, N. Coles, N. Fagerholm, M. Nagatsu, A. S. Olafsson, N. Soininen, and K. Vierikko. 2021. Radical changes are needed for transformations to a good Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability 1:5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00017-x

McPherron, R. L. 1979. Magnetospheric substorms. Reviews of Geophysics 17(4):657-681. https://doi.org/10.1029/RG017i004p00657

Miraux, L. 2022. Environmental limits to the space sector's growth. Science of the Total Environment 806:150862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150862

Morley, S. K. 2020. Challenges and opportunities in magnetospheric space weather prediction. Space Weather 18(3):e2018SW002108. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018SW002108

Muelhaupt, T. J., M. E. Sorge, J. Morin, and R. S. Wilson. 2019. Space traffic management in the new space era. Journal of Space Safety Engineering 6(2):80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsse.2019.05.007

Muench, S., E. Stoermer, K. Jensen, T. Asikainen, M. Salvi, and F. Scapolo. 2022. Towards a green and digital future, EUR 31075 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/977331

Nativi, S., P. Mazzetti, and M. Craglia. 2021. Digital ecosystems for developing digital twins of the Earth: the destination Earth case. Remote Sensing 13(11):2119. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13112119

Nevanlinna, H. 2008. On geomagnetic variations during the August-September storms of 1859. Advances in Space Research 42(1):171-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2008.01.002

Nwankwo, V. U. J., S. K. Chakrabarti, and R. S. Weigel. 2015. Effects of plasma drag on low Earth orbiting satellites due to solar forcing induced perturbations and heating. Advances in Space Research 56(1):47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.03.044

Odenwald, S., J. Green, and W. Taylor. 2006. Forecasting the impact of an 1859-calibre superstorm on satellite resources. Advances in Space Research 38(2):280-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2005.10.046

Olla, P. editor. 2009. Space technologies for the benefit of human society and Earth. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9573-3

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2019. The space economy in figures: how space contributes to the global economy. OECD, Paris, France. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/the-space-economy-in-figures_c5996201-en

Oughton, E. J., A. Skelton, R. B. Horne, A. W. P. Thomson, and C. T. Gaunt. 2017. Quantifying the daily economic impact of extreme space weather due to failure in electricity transmission infrastructure. Space Weather 15(1):65-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016SW001491

Palmroth, M., U. Ganse, Y. Pfau-Kempf, M. Battarbee, L. Turc, T. Brito, M. Grandin, S. Hoilijoki, A. Sandroos, and S. von Alfthan. 2018. Vlasov methods in space physics and astrophysics. Living Reviews of Computational Astrophysics 4:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41115-018-0003-2

Palmroth, M., M. Grandin, T. Sarris, E. Doornbos, S. Tourgaidis, A. Aikio, S. Buchert, M. A. Clilverd, I. Dandouras, R. Heelis, A. Hoffmann, et al. 2021b. Lower-thermosphere-ionosphere (LTI) quantities: current status of measuring techniques and models. Annales Geophysicae 39(1):189-237. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-39-189-2021

Palmroth, M., J. Praks, R. Vainio, P. Janhunen, E. Kilpua, A. Afanasiev, M. Ala-Lahti, A. Alho, T. Asiakainen, E. Asvestari, et al. 2019. Foresail-1 cubesat mission to measure radiation belt losses and demonstrate deorbiting. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 124(7):5783-5799. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026354

Palmroth, M., T. I. Pulkkinen, U. Ganse, Y. Pfau-Kempf, T. Koskela, I. Zaitsev, M. Alho, G. Cozzani, L. Turc, M. Battarbee, et al. 2023. Magnetotail plasma eruptions driven by magnetic reconnection and kinetic instabilities. Nature Geoscience 16(7):570-576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01206-2

Palmroth, M., J. Tapio, A. Soucek, A. Perrels, M. Jah, M. Lönnqvist, M. Nikulainen, V. Piaulokaite, T. Seppälä, and J. Virtanen. 2021a. Toward sustainable use of space: economic, technological, and legal perspectives. Space Policy 57:101428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2021.101428

Perrow, C. 2000. Normal accidents. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691004129/normal-accidents

Pulkkinen, A., S. Lindahl, A. Viljanen, and R. Pirjola, 2005. Geomagnetic storm of 29-31 October 2003: geomagnetically induced currents and their relation to problems in the Swedish high-voltage power transmission system. Space Weather 3(8). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004SW000123

Pulkkinen, A., A. Thomson, E. Clarke, and A McKay. 2003. April 2000 geomagnetic storm: ionospheric drivers of large geomagnetically induced currents. Annales Geophysicae 21(3):709-717. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-21-709-2003

Redclift, M. 1987. Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. Routledge, London, UK.

Rochlin, G. I. 1998. Trapped in the net. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400822263

Roe, E., R. G. Bea, S. N. Jonkman, H. F. De Corn, H. Foster, J. Radke, P. Schulman, and R. Storesund. 2016. Risk assessment and management for interconnected critical infrastructure systems at the site and regional levels in California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures 12(1-2):143-174. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJCIS.2016.075867

Roe, E., and P. R. Schulman. 2008. High reliability management: operating on the edge. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503627123

Roe, E., and P. R. Schulman. 2018. A reliability & risk framework for the assessment and management of system risks in critical infrastructures with central control rooms. Safety Science 110:80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.003

Rosen, A. 1976. Spacecraft charging: environment-induced anomalies. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 13(3):129-136. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.57073

Ryan, R. G. E. A. Marais, C. J. Balhatchet, and S. D. Eastham. 2022. Impact of rocket launch and space debris air pollutant emissions on stratospheric ozone and global climate. Earth's Future 10:e2021EF002612. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002612

Schrijver, C. J., K. Kauristie, A. D. Aylward, C. M. Denardini, S. E. Gibson, A. Glover, N. Gopaswamy, M. Grande, M. Hapgood, D. Heynderikx, et al. 2015. Understanding space weather to shield society: a global road map for 2015-2025 commissioned by COSPAR and ILWS. Advances in Space Research 55(12):2745-2807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2015.03.023

Secure World Foundation (SWF). 2018. Space sustainability: a practical guide. SWF, Broomfield, Colorado, USA. https://swfound.org/media/121399/swf_space_sustainability-a_practical_guide_2014__1_.pdf

Space Foundation. 2022. The space report 2022. The Space Foundation, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA. https://www.spacefoundation.org/2022/07/27/the-space-report-2022-q2/

Swart, R. J., P. Raskin, and J. Robinson. 2004. The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Global Environmental Change 14(2):137-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.002

The White House. 2021. United states space priorities framework. The White House, Washington, D.C., USA. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/01/united-states-space-priorities-framework/

Tooze, A. 2022. Welcome to the world of the polycrisis. Financial Times, 28 October.

United Nations (UN). 2023. Risk tipping points. United Nations University - Institute for Environment and Human Security, Bonn, Germany. https://interconnectedrisks.org/

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2015. Global waste management outlook. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/99773/1/GWMO_report.pdf

U.S. Congress. 2022. H.R.5376. Inflation reduction act of 2022. U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C., USA. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376/text

Vinuesa, R., H. Azizpour, I. Leite, M. Balaam, V. Dignum, S. Domisch, A. Felländer, S. D. Langhans, M. Tegmark, and F. F. Nerini. 2020. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications 11(1):233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y

Wark, W. 2023. The Five Eyes and space: a new frontier for an old intelligence alliance. Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. https://www.cigionline.org/articles/the-five-eyes-and-space-a-new-frontier-for-an-old-intelligence-alliance/

Witze, A. 2016. Software error doomed Japanese Hitomi spacecraft. Nature 533:18-19. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19835

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). 1987. Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future, technical report. United Nations General Assembly, New York, New York, USA. http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Zhang, Y., L. J. Paxton, R. Schaefer, and W. H. Swartz. 2022. Thermospheric conditions associated with the loss of 40 Starlink Satellites. Space Weather 20(10):e2022SW003168. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003168