How do Space Blocs Mirror Countries’ Technological Inequalities

Terrestrial allegiances are not ignored when it comes to space travel. Though no country wants to sever the norm of peace in space and be seen as an aggressor, aggregations of money and power on Earth have fueled space travel exhibitions. Similar to the infamous Space Race of the 60’s, countries have started a competition to see who can advance the farthest and fastest in space (especially the United States, as in December 2025 Donald Trump made an official declaration for space supremacy in 2025). This race is not only restricted to countries that can afford it, another main goal of space blocs is to make the technology fueling space exploration more accessible to less developed countries. The first recognized space bloc is the European Space Agency, founded in 1975. It later contributed to the building of the International Space Station (ISS), a major research facility that both the U.S and Russia also worked on. The same cannot be said when it comes to lunar research stations. The Artemis missions (headed under a coalition of countries following the Artemis Accords) plan to set up a lunar base and colony in space. They have not allied with China and Russia, despite both countries planning to build the same thing. Space is a difficult frontier to conquer, it’s expensive, requires extensive research into aerospace engineering and physics, and there are enumerable unknowns orbiting the field. 

In the Outer Space Treaty (Article II) , it states that no one country can own resources collected from celestial bodies, but would space blocs test that restriction? If the extraction of resources from the Moon is theoretically shared between multiple countries, could these space blocs argue that no international law is being broken? While the Artemis Accords operates outside of UN jurisdiction (though it still follows guidelines set by the UN that align with the mission); the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) is open about its policies of multilateralism. The main reason two major space blocs have been able to form so fast is the utility of space blocs for both the countries creating them, and the countries joining. Member states get access to technological power, potential opportunities to bolster national prestige (through prioritizing their involvement in space missions), and be in the know about the happenings in space. No country wants to be left behind technologically, so becoming involved with space blocs is a way for smaller and/or developing countries to gain aerospace knowledge. For bloc leaders, it allows them to set norms surrounding space exploration and research, writing rules that benefit them and their allies.

For example, multiple countries are involved in the building of spacecrafts for the Artemis Mission. Countries like Japan and the United Arab Emirates will have a larger influence on negotiations for the Artemis Missions compared to a country like Angola due to them contributing more technologically (Angola is unable to do this currently because they have a burgeoning space sector. This creates a power imbalance between bloc members and leaders with significant wealth and power that can be spent on space exploration missions, and countries that joined these blocs in hopes of gaining political power. Countries with little actualization power join these blocs as both a way to get ahead of rival countries, and an opportunity to gain resources from more developed countries. Countries may play for both sides when it comes to space exploration because it is an emerging field, and there is no definitive answer to who dominates in space. While this may prevent some countries from deeply engaging in certain projects due to national security concerns, countries don’t have much to lose by involving themselves as much as possible. One of the largest issues with space blocs is it exacerbates the fears brought on by the uncertainty of space. While rockets can be used to explore the cosmos, they can also be used to attack other countries. International laws discouraging aggressive behavior are not concrete, so fear around surprise attacks are not completely unfounded. Countries creating allegiances as a pre-emptive defense strategy is similar to one of many reasons that WWI started. Countries were suspicious of hidden alliances being made between countries, and technological advancements were indistinguishable from weapons of war. Open transparency between both major space blocs could help both alleviate tension and fear about the purpose of spacecrafts. 

The dominance of space by a select-few countries can be viewed as another historical parallel between space exploration and colonization. Countries with an abundance of power and resources can draw in private patrons domestically and internationally, funding resource extraction expeditions to space. The value of resources in space is currently speculative. Dreams of going to Mars, or using the moon as a resting stop for space travel are founded on far-off discoveries. But, all the minerals the cosmos have to offer are reserved first of all for the developed countries on Earth that can afford to allocate federal funding (or have the technological feats to encourage private investment) to outer space exploration. Countries less well off can know of these advancements, but never contribute significantly to them. A prime example of this is the result of the Chang’e 6 mission. It was a remarkable feat, the first ever lunar mission to retrieve samples from the dark-side of the moon. When the samples returned to Earth, they were sent to European countries, along with the U.S and Japan, despite their numerous space-science alliances with African countries. Although many countries in Africa do not have the research capacity for those samples to be useful, space blocs could be used to uplift developing countries in the realm of space research. Space blocs encourage cooperation and the sharing of knowledge, they also lead some countries on, stating that they are potential space partners, but not critical players in space exploration., maintaining the sociopolitical hierarchy established on Earth. 

Diplomacy is a chief priority for many countries in space. Though policies like the Wolf Amendment greatly interfere with efforts to communicate freely about advancements in space, the U.S and China can still co-operate through projects involving numerous other countries. NASA actively encourages this co-operation, as contributing spacecrafts to missions influences NASA to allow international astronauts to go on missions. It allows NASA to negotiate (pg 34) any terms that best suit them, as countries may overestimate how much it may cost to produce or be a part of a space expedition. But, allowing many different countries with similar interests to compete for a spot on a NASA mission pushes all of these space agencies to innovate. China’s approach is more straightforward, where organizations can just pay to become involved in space missions. This is more accessible for countries that have enough money to support space-science, but not the technical prowess to make spacecrafts. Because there are numerous space blocs, a country can choose which best suits their goals in space and support them. Some have theorized that because the Artemis Accords was created first (in 2020), the ILRS was created as competition. Another major difference between the two blocs is that the Artemis Accords have planned out and executed some of their missions, while ILRS is expected to start development around 2028. The more nebulous ILRS may be appealing to some countries, as they could use freely available data from Artemis missions to most effectively conduct their missions. But, Artemis could be a more appealing bloc because it includes more countries, has tangible results, and has slightly looser restrictions than the UN on space excavation. The Artemis Accords encourages resource extraction to further space development, while UN regulations are yet to support space mining as it could interfere with no ownership rule. 

Space blocs are a natural result of allegiances on land transferring into space. While this allows like-minded countries to work towards developing technology that benefits all countries, it also exacerbates existing concentrations of wealth and resources, ultimately making them a harmful phenomenon in space policy.