Space Data Ethics: The Next Frontier in Responsible Leadership

National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group

Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

December 1, 2023

The content of this paper reflects the thoughts and opinions of the subcommittee’s authors and 

should not be construed as a recommendation of the full National Space Council Users’ 

Advisory Group or the official policy of the United States Government, the National Space 

Council, or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This paper solely provides 

background information and context for findings or recommendations that were developed for 

submission to the National Space Council Office for consideration. This paper does not 

presume that any action will be taken.
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 2

Index

1. Purpose 3

2. What is the problem? 4

3. Why is data ethics important? 5

4. What is space data, and how is it different from other data? 6

5. Is existing data ethics enough for space data ethics? 7

6. What are examples of the tension between the two ethical regimes? 8

7. Recommendation on space data ethics 11

Acknowledgements 14
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 3

1. Purpose

This is a position paper in support of a recommendation to develop the principles of space 

data ethics, to be presented to the U.S. National Space Council (NSpC) at its next meeting 

by its Users’ Advisory Group (UAG) subcommittee for climate and societal benefits. 

Space data ethics is different from existing data ethics in its various forms, which include 

business-data ethics (e.g., protecting privacy1), research ethics (e.g., against falsifying

data2), Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics (e.g., guarding against machine-learned bias3), 

open-data ethics (e.g., for citizen science4), and others. 

For instance, Earth Observation (EO) data from space doesn’t typically raise the same 

concerns about individual privacy and harms that are central to data ethics, though in some 

cases it could (e.g., whether to reveal the location of uncontacted, indigenous tribes5in the 

Amazon, or other sensitive or competitive location-based data). Instead, space data ethics 

may both overlap and conflict with the various forms of existing data ethics given the wideranging applications of space data, from science to national security and more, as well as 

associated questions, such as data ownership and control.

To handle and share space data responsibly, work is urgently needed to anticipate the 

possible harms—which may be different from ordinary data-ethics failures—and develop 

a new ethics framework specifically for space data. To the best of our knowledge, no 

one else has identified or framed the problem this way or is conducting such a study, so 

this is a real opportunity to demonstrate responsible leadership.

This position paper only begins to lay out the justification for our recommendation and is 

not a comprehensive discussion itself, which would be part of the investigation 

recommended by the NSpC UAG subcommittee on climate and societal benefits.

1 https://hbr.org/2023/07/the-ethics-of-managing-peoples-data

2 https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/09/they-studied-dishonesty-was-their-work-a-lie

3 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/21/fact-sheet-biden-harrisadministration-secures-voluntary-commitments-from-leading-artificial-intelligence-companies-to-managethe-risks-posed-by-ai/

4 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.637037/full

5 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/should-we-use-satellites-keep-eye-remote-amazoniantribes-180953240/
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 4

2. What is the problem?

Data is information, and information is power—and this power can be wielded responsibly 

or not. Power (and data) can also be shared equitably or hoarded. For nearly every week 

in the last 5-10 years, a curious researcher can find news reports about the harms that can 

arise from not attending to data ethics, such as AI bias in hiring or criminal sentencing. 

These are real problems that affect real lives.

But the principles and frameworks developed for data ethics, as generally understood now, 

appear ill-suited to guide our practices with respect to space data: information collected 

from various sources in outer space, such as satellites, telescopes, space probes, and so on; 

see section 3 for more detail. Space data, then, is typically a different, broader sort of data 

than what “regular” data ethics generally aims to oversee. Therefore, “space data ethics” 

needs to be urgently studied as a novel or emerging domain, to ensure the U.S. and 

others are acting responsibly with space data.

For instance, in data ethics, data minimization is a best practice, from collection to sharing 

to storage; this is meant to protect the privacy and sensitive personal information of 

individuals, among other reasons. While there still may be personal privacy concerns with 

some space data—such as communications intercepts and sensitive location or business 

data—for EO and other data, there may be good reason to maximize collection, especially 

if researchers don’t know what they can learn from it (because it’s a frontier of science) or 

what data they’ll need in the future (e.g., to address climate change in new ways, or to 

leverage new technologies that become accessible). 

As one more example, much of space data is also inherently dual-use in ways that “regular 

data” is usually not. For instance, tracking wildfire smoke from Canada across the U.S.

can help forecast air quality and alert people to take precautions, in addition to better 

understanding weather patterns. But that information can also be weaponized by 

adversaries who want to know where to, say, strategically start the next wildfire (or release 

an airborne pathogen, or even detonate a nuclear bomb) outside of a target state’s territory 

as an indirect attack with plausible deniability. 

Less dramatically, business competitors can also weaponize data, capitalizing on 

asymmetric access. For instance, satellites are very useful in farm management, but that 

collected data isn’t necessarily available to the farmer who often is not the owner of the 

land; yet third parties with greater resources could access that data to buy the land from 

under the famer.

If the U.S. wants to maintain its leadership in space affairs—including having the moral 

authority to attract, lead, and inspire allies—it must be careful and responsible in how it 

handles space data, just as it strives to do with personal data about its own citizens. But 
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 5

this will be problematic without first knowing what principles govern space data ethics, 

which already appear distinct from existing data ethics.

Indeed, the U.S. State Department has recently been promoting “space data for the 

greater good of humanity”

6

, but what that means exactly is under-specified and bound to 

be controversial inasmuch as not all stakeholders will agree on what the “greater good” is. 

This is a similar problem as efforts in artificial intelligence that seek to promote “AI for 

humanity” or “AI for good” or “AI for people”: which people? who gets to decide what the 

greater good is? who might the losers be here, i.e., what are the tradeoffs? As they say, the 

devil is in the details.

So, it’s critical to quickly fill that gap by developing the principles and framework for 

space data ethics, since staggering amounts of space data are being captured and shared 

every day—data that is vital for science, agriculture, climate studies, commerce, civil 

society, national security, diplomacy, and more.

3. Why is data ethics important?

As the world is increasingly driven by data and technology, data ethics—or the ethical 

collection, processing, use, sharing, control, and storage of data—is essential, along with 

cybersecurity. For instance, in its various existing forms, data ethics7helps to safeguard 

individual privacy, promote fairness and equity, build trust and confidence, comply with 

laws and regulation, and much more. 

This is more than about the accuracy and quality of the data, which clearly are essential, 

but it’s also about how that data is used and handled. Not attending to data ethics has led 

to high-profile abuses and real-world harm to people (e.g., in biased decisions on hiring8, 

bank lending9, and criminal sentencing10), organizations (e.g., reputational harm11, loss of 

customers12, decreasing employee morale13), and perhaps to democracy itself (e.g., 

Cambridge Analytica scandal14).

6 https://www.state.gov/the-i2u2-group-announces-joint-space-venture/

7 https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/technology-ethics/resources/an-introduction-to-data-ethics/

8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G

9 https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/23/ai-has-a-discrimination-problem-in-banking-that-can-bedevastating.html

10 https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

11 https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2022/01/the-reputational-risks-of-ai

12 https://www.informationweek.com/big-data/the-cost-of-ai-bias-lower-revenue-lost-customers

13 https://www.fastcompany.com/90762918/ai-can-hurt-worker-morale-when-managers-dont-have-thesespecific-skills

14 https://www.reuters.com/legal/facebook-parent-meta-pay-725-mln-settle-lawsuit-relating-cambridgeanalytica-2022-12-23/
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 6

In 2023, the Hollywood strikes15 were ultimately about the fair and responsible use of data, 

whether it’s about the control of and reasonable compensation for actors’ biometric data 

(e.g., to create AI versions of the actors that will work for free) or whether AI writers and 

their large language models were trained on ethically sourced data (e.g., without violating 

anyone’s intellectual property rights).

In general, ethics promotes the things we humans care about: our well-being, values, 

principled decisions, integrity, accountability, fairness, justice, social cohesion, 

sustainability, and so on. Ethics, for instance, is the difference between a professional 

military and mercenaries. Data ethics, then, helps to promote the things we care about with 

respect to the digital fingerprints and footprints we inescapably leave behind in the online 

world but also offline, e.g., as captured by cameras, sensors, microphones, and other 

technologies embedded around us.

4. What is space data, and how is it different from other data?

“Space data” refers to the information collected from various sources in outer space, such 

as satellites, telescopes, space probes, and other such instruments. This includes satellite 

imagery, remote-sensing data, astronomical data, space weather data, space-based 

navigation and communications data, planetary exploration ethics (as distinct from the 

study of Earth), and more. The applications for space data are far-ranging and include 

scientific knowledge, environmental monitoring, agriculture, disaster response, mapping, 

urban planning, military planning, and so on.

Already, key differences can be seen between space data and “regular data” or the everyday 

kind of data that’s collected by businesses and other organizations, which more typically 

tracks individual behavior and characteristics, and which is the kind of data that 

“traditional” or existing data ethics (i.e., data ethics as we generally know it now, in its 

various forms) seeks to govern. 

While space data can be about individual people—such as satellite surveillance that follows 

a suspected terrorist and intercepts his space-enabled communications, or to help a 

particular farmer manage the land more productively with precision agriculture—it’s 

generally easier, less expensive, and better (e.g., higher-resolution) to track individuals 

with technologies on Earth, such as ordinary mobile phones, internet click-histories, and 

surveillance cameras. Space data, then, is more often about phenomena at a broader scale, 

15 https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-hollywood-strikes-explained-writers-actorse872bd63ab52c3ea9f7d6e825240a202
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 7

such as monitoring water levels, forest fires, migration patterns, traffic congestion, areas of 

interest on land or sea, military troop movements, and so on.

5. Is existing data ethics enough for space data ethics?

If “regular data” is generally different from space data—e.g., they may have different data 

subjects, different purposes, and different risks—then it makes sense that data ethics aimed 

at regular data may not be capable of addressing the unique or different considerations 

associated with space data more broadly.

As it’s understood today in its various forms, data ethics is generally aimed at protecting 

the human subjects about which data is collected—which means that data ethics tends to 

prioritize protection of the autonomy, privacy, and other interests of individuals, especially 

as failing to protect these things can result in serious harm or worse to people. In contrast, 

space data isn’t nearly as focused on individuals (though it sometimes can be) or even 

people in general, which again can be better tracked by Earth-based data sources. So, there 

is a difference in the subjects of data collection between a typical data ethics framework 

and space data ethics. (Where space data implicates personal and sensitive data of 

individuals or their property, a typical data ethics framework could still apply.)

Therefore, the purposes or uses of data are also generally different between data ethics in 

general and space data ethics, as are the interests at stake. For instance, online browsing 

data is commonly used for targeted advertising and recommender algorithms (e.g., Netflix, 

YouTube, Spotify, Amazon, etc.), while space data is more often used for scientific, 

national security, land-use management, and other purposes. Commercial purposes raise a 

special challenge in as much as a profit-motive can conflict with ethical values, which is a 

primary concern of data ethics in general.

Of course, space data can also be used for advertising and other commercial purposes (e.g., 

weather-based marketing16), but again it’s more often about things of other economic 

interest, such as natural resources, crop yields, weather forecasts, and other things that 

directly or indirectly affect business. Thus, space data ethics likely does not have such an 

emphasis on protecting individual subjects (e.g., with EO data, where the data isn’t so much 

about individuals) and so will be motivated by different principles and priorities.

The risks are likewise different between the two. Where data ethics in general is designed 

to guard against harm to individuals—especially with respect to privacy, autonomy, and 

discrimination—space data isn’t typically about individuals and thus not aimed at the same 

16 https://www.ibm.com/watson-advertising/thought-leadership/complete-guide-weather-triggeredadvertising
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 8

kind of risks. But there is real risk with space data, particularly if much of space data is 

inherently dual-use. For instance, weather tracking and predictions can help farmers, firstresponders, and other people plan for their future; but could that data also be exploited for 

politics (e.g., in strategically timing a military attack) and for profit (e.g., information 

asymmetry in water/land negotiations, as well as in competition among farmers and 

landowners)? Refugee migration patterns, as seen from space17, can help with coordinating 

humanitarian efforts; but is it really a good idea to make all such data open and accessible, 

even to authoritarian governments seeking to persecute the same refugees (or political 

enemies on the run)?

Moreover, insofar as data of any kind is increasingly processed by AI or machine 

learning, there will exist a risk of misclassification with all such data, given technological 

limits. For instance, in AI data ethics, mislabeling a person as a “high-risk offender” or 

“high-risk borrower” based on factors indirectly correlated with race or ethnicity could 

seriously disadvantage the individual or worse. In space ethics, mislabeling Earth 

observations can similarly create unwarranted bias to harmful effects, e.g., mislabeling a 

populated area as a “slum” or “refugee camp” could cause it to be unduly stigmatized and 

even targeted for eradication. Still, the risks appear to be of different kinds, even if both 

are caused by AI misclassification.

6. What are examples of the tension between the two ethical regimes?

As starting examples of how the differences can manifest between data ethics and space 

data ethics: 

A key principle in data ethics is to minimize data collection18 to only what is needed for 

an intended and legitimate purpose, such as to recommend movies and other content to 

digital consumers. For that purpose, the data collector doesn’t need to collect, say, social 

security numbers or other sensitive personal information to achieve the intended goal; nor 

should it seek out intimate details of a person’s life, such as sexual preferences and partners, 

especially if the data subject had not consented to it or if the data isn’t very relevant to a 

purpose. Over-collecting data not only puts such sensitive details of one’s life at 

unnecessary risk of a data leak or breach—which could then be used against the person or 

in identity theft—but it also could violate reasonable privacy expectations and harm human 

dignity.

But in space data ethics, insofar as much of the data could be for the promotion of 

knowledge and science, researchers don’t know what they don’t know and therefore what 

17 https://www.migrationdataportal.org/data-sources/satellite-data

18 https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 9

kinds of data they should collect in order to know; so, there is a plausible justification to 

over-collect space data in the hopes of finding something useful in there. Such data-fishing 

expeditions about the natural world may be reasonable in the pursuit of new knowledge, 

but much harder to defend when it’s about personal and location data of human subjects. 

Still, there may be reason to limit space data collection, such as to conserve computing 

energy and storage given the massive amounts of data that’s generated every minute. Some 

space data could still raise privacy concerns both for individuals and at scale for certain 

groups, such as indigenous tribes that haven’t consented to being monitored or refugee 

camps that are politically vulnerable.

Another related principle in data ethics is to minimize data sharing19 to only the legitimate 

parties that need the data, or at least with enough transparency to the data subjects for their 

informed consent. This helps to install a firewall to limit the damage in case an 

organization’s data about users/customers is stolen or accessed without authorization; if an 

organization isn’t holding on to sensitive or unnecessary personal data of its 

users/customers, then that data can’t be stolen.

But in space data ethics, insofar as much of the data’s use is for humanitarian or socially 

beneficial purposes—e.g., improving crop yields, forecasting weather, monitoring 

disasters—it seems that data sharing can help to accelerate or spread those benefits: sharing 

is caring. Indeed, the (non-legally binding) 1986 United Nations General Assembly 

resolution “Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space”

20

encourages maximal data sharing among nations; for instance, a State with a remotesensing program “shall, moreover, make available any other relevant information to the 

greatest extent feasible and practicable to any other State, particularly any developing 

country that is affected by the program, at its request” (emphasis added.) 

Further, in the emerging domain of space ethics, benefit-sharing21 is recognized as an 

important value and practice, especially among nations for the sake of diplomacy and more, 

even if it’s currently unclear how exactly that benefit-sharing should work. But there are 

dual-use and other risks associated with open space data that is broadly accessible globally. 

For instance, if made open-sourced, data about the Moon, asteroids, and other planets could 

prematurely open the floodgates for the next “gold rush” before it can be managed to avoid 

indiscriminate, wholesale exploitation and irreversible damage. Likewise, data about new 

archeological sites on Earth (e.g., “lost cities”

22) could invite tomb raiders and tourists to 

exploit those sites before they can be properly secured. 

19 https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/data-privacy-2/

20 https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/remote-sensing-principles.html

21 https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/space-benefits-declaration.html

22 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lost-cities-of-the-amazon-discovered-from-the-air180980142/
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 10

And just because space data may be open doesn’t mean everyone will have equal access

to it or equal capabilities in understanding the data, and this information asymmetry can 

put vulnerable stakeholders at greater risk. For instance, if energy companies have more 

resources to access and understand EO data, they can put Native American tribal nations at 

a serious disadvantage when it comes to negotiating water rights and forest management. 

Or if one farm can access and understand EO data about the productivity of other farms, 

that may create a competitive disadvantage for those other farmers.

As a final and related example, data ethics typically requires compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations. For instance, surveillance by uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) or 

drones could be subject to the laws of a territory23 if it’s done within their airspace; but 

space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) arguably transcends24

those laws because outer space itself transcends those territories and their legal 

jurisdictions. Outer space is recognized as a global common, thus sovereign autonomy 

(beyond control of a state’s own space objects) has different weight in space data ethics, 

including sovereign control of data concerning their territories.

In contrast, data ethics in general typically demands that data subjects have some level of 

control over the data25 collected about them, such as prescribed by the General Data 

Protection Regulation (GDPR26) in Europe and the California Consumer Privacy Act 

(CCPA27) in the U.S. And it’s very unclear whether, and to what extent, states or 

individuals would have a corresponding general right to delete the space data about them, 

such as satellite images from over their territory, at least beyond perhaps obscuring faces, 

license plate numbers, and other familiar measures to protect individual privacy. 

States could claim, for example, national-security interests in demanding the deletion of 

satellite images over their military installations or the deletion of location-data about their 

sensitive space assets (e.g., spy satellites). But given customary international norms and 

laws around ISR and espionage28, do those demands have much/any legal or moral force 

by themselves? Further, such national-security demands are in tension with the pressing 

need for better space situational awareness (SSA), i.e., more awareness of where space 

assets are to avoid collisions and other interference, irrespective of who owns the assets or 

what they are.

23 https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/drone-laws-by-state

24 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3649792

25 https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/data-privacy-2/

26 https://gdpr-info.eu/

27 https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa

28 https://www.justsecurity.org/85486/a-right-to-spy-the-legality-and-morality-of-espionage
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 11

Domestic privacy laws can also create tensions with respect to, for instance, the Native 

American tribal nations and farmers mentioned earlier, who don’t have the same access or 

ability to understand EO data as their competitors or negotiating parties do. Could those 

vulnerable stakeholders demand “shutter control”

29,30 of domestic satellite cameras (to not 

take photos), or limits on domestic sharing of data about their territories, or to know the 

identity of those requesting their data (and what data exactly) to level the competitive 

playing field? That is, how should we balance their privacy and commercial interests with 

the public good in domestically sharing EO and other space data, even if such data sharing 

by other nations cannot be controlled?

There are undoubtedly more examples and scenarios to uncover, e.g., related to the dualuse nature of space data, but already there’s reason to believe that data ethics, as it exists 

now, is not enough for space data ethics. 

7. Recommendation on space data ethics

If plans for space data collection, processing, use, sharing, control, and storage are to be 

responsible and grounded in ethics, then space data ethics must be recognized as distinct 

from traditional data ethics or data ethics in general, and its principles need to be identified 

and clarified.

Therefore, it is our recommendation to convene a study to develop a framework for 

space data ethics. The recommendation will be formally presented to the NSpC at its next 

meeting, by the UAG subcommittee on climate and societal benefits. 

As a position paper, the above discussion merely presents an initial case for a study and is 

itself not a comprehensive investigation of how the two ethical regimes are different, nor 

does it anticipate a full range of possible harms that might arise with space data. That is 

all work left to be done. Again, some space data, such as about individuals, may already 

be addressed by existing frameworks; that will need to be determined as well.

Inasmuch as data ethics is researched primarily by academic scholars, the National 

Academies would be a natural organization to lead this effort in the U.S. Other 

organizations, such as NASA, may also be reasonable homes, only if they are able to access 

the wide range of fields that may need to be considered in building a framework for space 

data ethics. For instance, the cognate or relevant fields may include the following:

29 https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-government-controls-sensitive-satellite-data/

30 https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/how-us-intel-worked-with-commercial-satellite-firms-to-revealukraine-info/
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 12

• Data ethics

• AI ethics

• Geospatial/location ethics

• Surveillance ethics

• Intelligence/espionage ethics

• Research ethics (especially on dual-use)

• Climate/environmental ethics

• Agricultural ethics

• Space ethics (including benefit/data sharing)

• Free/open data ethics

• Citizen-science ethics

• Privacy law

• International law

• Corporate law

• Other domains

As key stakeholders, both producers and consumers of space data (e.g., National 

Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Planet, Maxar, etc., as 

along with relevant professions, such as farmers), as well as civil-society stakeholders (e.g., 

civil rights groups, climate action non-governmental organizations, etc.) should also be 

invited to the study, especially as they can share real-world practices and existing norms or 

thinking around handling and managing space data.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) may also be a reasonable home, if those sponsored 

projects can engage with the full range of cognate fields above. But there are advantages 

in having a central, coordinated effort by a “neutral” organization such as the National 

Academies—with convening power to build a broad coalition of relevant experts—than to 

have this work distributed or even replicated across universities and other organizations as 

NSF-funded projects. 

On the other hand, if diverse views on space data ethics are desired first, then it may make 

sense to distribute this work across organizations—e.g., as NSF grants—and even 

international geographies to arrive at a consensus or convergence. Either way, it would be 

welcomed to see more researchers as well as stakeholders attending to the emerging 

subject, especially in space-faring nations that are positioned to generate and share space 

data.

To the extent that this work is urgent—since vast amounts of space data is being handled 

and shared every day—this NSpC UAG subcommittee recommends starting with a oneyear study that convenes a series of working meetings with relevant experts, e.g., AI ethics, 

surveillance ethics, climate ethics, etc. That study would culminate in an initial list of 
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 13

principles for space data ethics, or at least a discussion of when the principles might apply, 

what the tradeoffs might be, etc.

A definitive list of principles would require more time and care, especially to engage more 

experts and stakeholders globally. We’d estimate it would take 3-5 years to do it properly, 

depending on resources, judging how long it has taken for a thoughtful list of principles to 

be developed in AI ethics in recent years (starting around 201731), which are still evolving 

and being refined even now32. 

If this recommendation were to be accepted by the NSpC, the UAG subcommittee on 

climate and societal benefits would be available and prepared to work with the lead 

organization—whether it’s the National Academies or otherwise—on developing a 

workplan with more specificity and structure. The above is only a very broad sketch of the 

outline. 

Given the urgency of this subject and the time it may take for the lead organization to 

formally convene the recommended study, it may also be a good idea to kick off this work

with a preliminary workshop. This workshop would include a range of diverse experts to 

better identify and organize the key issues and risks at stake, as well as to provide input in 

developing the workplan.

Because space data cuts across many different disciplines and interests, it has 

extraordinarily broad value but, at the same time, raises new complexity for responsible 

oversight. Our national values and ethical principles are a source of strength, not weakness; 

and acting responsibly with respect to space data—and data is the life-blood of the 

information age—is our next test of those commitments, as well as an opportunity for moral 

leadership as the U.S. presses farther into space, the final frontier.

31 https://alanwinfield.blogspot.com/2017/12/a-round-up-of-robotics-and-ai-ethics.html

32 https://medium.com/@svallor_10030/edinburgh-declaration-on-responsibility-for-responsible-ai1a98ed2e328b
DELIBERATIVE

Recommendation on Space Data Ethics

NSpC UAG Climate and Societal Benefits Subcommittee

DELIBERATIVE 14

Acknowledgements

This position paper has benefited from reviews by and/or discussions with the US National 

Space Council Users’ Advisory Group, as well as the following external experts: Keith 

Abney (Cal Poly), Henry Danielson (California Cybersecurity Institute), Rossana Deplano 

(Leicester Law School, UK), Brian Green (Santa Clara Univ.), Ryan Jenkins (Cal Poly), 

Tony Pfaff (Army War College), Lea Shanley (UC Berkeley), Alyssa Whitcraft (NASA 

Acres; NASA Harvest), and others. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or 

recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the persons or organizations above.