Human settlement beyond Earth is moving from speculation towards funded programmes. Launch systems, lunar landers, habitats and resource-use technologies are all under development. NASA’s Inspector General estimated that Artemis-related spending alone would reach $93 billion across fiscal years 2012 to 2025. Yet far less attention is being paid to the institutions and practices that would allow an off-world civilisation to endure.
This is what I’d call the space civilisation opportunity: we are investing heavily in reaching and housing people beyond Earth, but far less in the human arrangements that would make settlement viable.
The Infrastructure Is Real
Almost a decade ago, I was mapping the infrastructure economics of the emerging space economy: launch cost curves, asteroid resources, orbital dry docks, tunnel-boring habitat systems and construction from lunar regolith. The technical trajectory is now clearer. Launch costs have continued to fall. Starship remains in flight development, but its test programme is advancing towards orbital and operational payload missions. Water ice has been detected on multiple Solar System bodies, commercial firms are developing asteroid-prospecting missions and construction teams are testing how habitats and components might be made from local material, with design files sent from Earth. All of this points to the technical foundations of long-duration settlement advancing, with investment to back it up.
Asteroids contain nickel-iron, silicates, carbonaceous material and, in some cases, water-bearing minerals: possible sources of construction material, life-support consumables and propellant. Water, split by electrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen, can provide propellant and breathable oxygen from local supply: Europa’s subsurface ocean may contain more than twice as much liquid water as all of Earth’s oceans combined and Enceladus has active jets that vent water vapour and ice particles into space and feed Saturn’s E ring. On the construction side, engineers are developing tunnel-boring and additive-manufacturing techniques for protected habitats, surface structures, tools and replacement parts made from local material. It’s a long supply chain and design files may travel at light speed, but materials, people and critical spares will not.
None of that work addresses the opportunity I am going to describe.
Civilisation Lag
The infrastructure conversation treats human settlement as a logistics outcome: get the materials there, get the structures built, get the people inside. The assumption is that civilisation follows from infrastructure, that once shelter, power, water and food production are secured, the human systems organise themselves. But history gives us ample reason to doubt that assumption. Physical infrastructure does not, by itself, create stable institutions, social trust or a community able to endure under pressure. Settlements succeed or fail partly because their social, cognitive and institutional arrangements either can or cannot absorb the conditions imposed by the physical environment.
I call this civilisation lag: the widening gap between the rate of physical capability development and the readiness of the human systems meant to inhabit it.
Sending people to another world and leaving them there to extract resources is colonisation. That word is loaded and has history. Civilisation is a different project. A colony is organised around the interests of its sponsor. A civilisation must also serve the people who live within it and, eventually, be capable of outlasting that sponsor. It must govern itself, sustain meaning, manage conflict, maintain health and evolve a culture across generations. The distinction is structural and that is what this essay is about.
Long-duration analogues provide evidence of the behavioural pressures a settlement would have to absorb. The Mars-500 experiment, conducted in 2010 and 2011 at the Institute of Biomedical Problems in Moscow, confined six men in a 550-cubic-metre facility for 520 days to simulate a crewed Mars mission. A 2013 study found that four of the six crew members experienced one or more persistent disturbances of sleep quality, sleep–wake timing or circadian organisation. Across the crew, waking activity declined while sleep and rest increased, a pattern the researchers described as hypokinesis and behavioural torpor. A separate ethological study found that collective behaviour at breakfast, one of the few unstructured social moments, declined between the outbound and return phases. Facial-expression frequency also fell over time, while group behaviour oscillated across mission phases. The crew completed the 520-day confinement. The experiment met its central operational objective, but its behavioural findings revealed strains the objective was not designed to measure.
Mars-500 was a simulation: no microgravity, no radiation, no genuine threat to life. Actual spaceflight adds a physiological load. Astronauts can lose roughly 1 to 2 per cent of bone mineral density per month from weight-bearing bones, although rates vary by person, skeletal site, mission and countermeasure. In a 2022 study, several measures of tibial bone strength, density and microarchitecture remained below pre-flight levels one year after return, particularly after missions longer than six months. A 2019 study of nine astronauts found that gastrointestinal microbiomes became more similar during flight and that changes in some bacterial taxa were associated with changes in cytokine profiles, although the health consequences remain uncertain. Spaceflight is also associated with immune dysregulation, including altered immune responses and latent-virus reactivation. Reviews report that energy intake can fall to 70 to 80 per cent of daily requirements, particularly early in a mission, with consequences for muscle, bone, cardiovascular function and cognition.
These physiological and behavioural pressures are not side issues; they will shape how every institution in a settlement functions. They demonstrate the conditions that influence the operating environment for systems a settlement depends on. So, we need to design those systems.
What a Space (New?!) Civilisation Requires
A civilisation is an integrated system. Its domains interact continuously, and its failure modes are systemic.
Food, health, governance, political economy, cognition, machine agency, belief, the built environment, population and culture will affect one another, whether they are designed together or not.
The industries that support them are also interconnected: transport, energy, construction, pharmaceuticals, finance, communications, security and critical technologies.
By its very nature, no one discipline or mindset can design and build all of these systems and in fact what’s more important, is the interfaces between them. It needs to be co-adaptive: people, habitats and institutions continuously adjusting to one another.
Conditions as the design brief
A settlement beyond Earth will not be built on neutral ground. Human bodies evolved within Earth’s gravity, atmosphere, radiation shielding, microbial world and day–night cycle. Beyond Earth, several of those conditions change at once: Gravity may be partial or absent, radiation exposure is cumulative, air, water, temperature and microbial balance are engineered, habitable volume is finite, dust can be hazardous, resupply may be delayed, evacuation may be impossible, and privacy, sleep and movement all depend on functioning machinery.
And there is not just one off-world environment. An orbital habitat, a lunar settlement and a Martian settlement would impose different combinations of gravity, radiation, light, dust, atmosphere, isolation and resupply. Conditions will also change over time: an initial construction crew, an established community and a population containing children and older people will not inhabit the same social or physiological world. So there is a need to account for specificity of place while remaining capable of change.
Some conditions are imposed by nature; others are design choices. Radiation exposure can be reduced through shielding; rotation can produce artificial gravity in some habitat concepts; and light cycles, atmospheric composition, temperature, acoustic conditions, microbial ecology, privacy and social density can all be shaped. The question then becomes: when should the person adapt, when should the environment adapt, and how will a change to either alter the rest of the system?
These conditions also bind systems together:
A power failure can become an air, water, communications, medical and governance emergency at the same time
A medicine shortage can begin in logistics, storage or local manufacturing
A disagreement about work can become a disagreement about access to shelter and life support if the employer also owns the habitat.
The environment will both test each institution and remove the distance between them. So then this is the brief: altered gravity, cumulative exposure, closed material loops, delayed support, scarce redundancy and no easy exit. The settlement’s institutions must remain effective and legitimate under those conditions, including when its technical systems do not work as intended.
Food systems as social architecture
Meeting caloric and nutritional needs is only part of the problem. In a closed habitat, food will also structure daily ritual, identity and social contact. The decline in collective breakfast behaviour during Mars-500 is a warning: when shared eating erodes, a recurring space for unstructured contact erodes with it. Kimchi has been developed as space food, and a 2025 study demonstrated that miso could be fermented aboard the International Space Station. Those examples show how fermentation might diversify future food systems; they do not tell us what years of restricted choice and repeated meals will do to a group. Evidence on that timescale remains limited. And when supply is constrained, deciding who receives what is a political problem arriving inside a nutritional one.
Health as a unified system
Space medicine often studies bone loss, sleep, mood and cognition as separate problems. In a settlement their effects may compound: impaired sleep changes judgement; reduced mobility changes activity and social contact; immune shifts may alter risk across the group. The Moon’s roughly 14 day periods of daylight and darkness create an environmental challenge, although habitat lighting can mediate their effect on sleep. Microbiome convergence raises a further question: whether greater microbial similarity could create shared vulnerabilities across a crew. That remains a hypothesis to test, not an established outcome. Health in a space settlement is an ecology, and it needs to be designed as one.
Medicine in a permanent settlement may need to move from periodic diagnosis and episodic treatment towards continuous sensing and local, closed-loop support: systems capable of monitoring physiology and adjusting selected interventions in response. The aim would not be to force every body towards a single optimal state, but to keep each person within safe, resilient ranges as gravity, radiation exposure, workload, sleep, diet, age and reproductive state change. Let’s call this adaptive physiology (or adaptive chemistry?): maintaining viable ranges as conditions change.
Some components already exist in limited form: wearable monitoring, point-of-care diagnostics and closed-loop devices that adjust therapy in response to sensed physiology. A settlement might eventually connect measures of hydration, metabolism, cardiovascular load, sleep, immune function, radiation exposure and medication response to adjustments in lighting, food, exercise, workload, atmosphere or treatment. The system would need to distinguish support from enhancement, and adaptation from pathology.
So what are the boundaries of institutions in this world and who defines the target ranges? Who owns the physiological data? When may an automated system recommend an intervention, and when may it act? Can an employer or insurer require a person to remain within a specified physiological range? What happens when individual preference conflicts with crew safety? Continuous health regulation could increase autonomy from Earth while reducing bodily autonomy inside the settlement. The technical and constitutional designs should therefore be built together.
The available evidence already shows pressure across these domains. It does not yet establish how those pressures combine over settlement timescales:
Table 1: Evidence, uncertainty and design implications. This table separates findings observed in spaceflight and terrestrial analogues from questions that remain unresolved. The final column identifies design implications, not predicted outcomes or a timetable for deterioration.
Governance under closure
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 establishes principles for state activity in space, but not the detailed institutions required to govern a permanent settlement. The Artemis Accords are political commitments among their signatories, not a constitution for a functioning community. A Mars settlement would face a one-way communications delay of approximately three to 22 minutes, depending on the relative positions of Earth and Mars. Earth-based authorities could advise, but they could not intervene in real time. A settlement would therefore need legitimate local authority over resource allocation, conflict resolution, medical triage and emergency response. In SFINCSS-99, a precursor to Mars-500, one participant withdrew on mission day 63 after a period of intergroup conflict that included an altercation during a New Year celebration. That was 110 days, with Earth outside the door. Research on governance, behavioural health and isolated groups exists; what has not yet matured is an integrated discipline for governing a permanent community with no immediate external authority and no easy exit.
The operating economy
A permanent settlement will not be a single industry. It will be an interdependent economy of transport and logistics; energy and utilities; construction and architecture; mining, materials and manufacturing; food and agriculture; medicine, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology; communications, data and AI; finance and insurance; scientific research and critical technologies; and security and defence. These systems will not operate like readily substitutable markets on Earth. If a sole provider of power, medicine, communications or pressure-safe housing fails, the settlement itself may be at risk.
Architecture therefore extends beyond habitability and sensory design. Someone will finance, own, construct, certify, maintain and insure every habitat. Healthcare extends beyond human physiology into pharmaceutical supply, local production, diagnostics, clinical data and regulation. Security extends beyond emergency procedure into cyber defence, surveillance, dual-use infrastructure and control over the systems on which the population depends.
Scientific research will be infrastructure too. Quantum sensing, precision clocks and quantum communications may support navigation, resource mapping, scientific measurement and secure links. Quantum computing may eventually add other capabilities, although many applications remain developmental. None of these technologies removes the light-speed delay between worlds. The institutional question is who controls critical sensing, timing, encryption and computational infrastructure, and whether its operation can be independently verified.
This makes business rules constitutional. Who owns the habitat, power system, mining equipment and output? Who may charge for air, water, medicine, communications or transport? If the sponsor is also the employer, landlord, utility provider and issuer of the return ticket, losing a job could mean losing the conditions of life. Contracts, taxation, intellectual property, procurement, insurance, liability, insolvency and the financing of shared infrastructure cannot remain Earth-side abstractions. A company town on Earth can be left. A company habitat on Mars cannot.
Environmental rules belong here too. Contamination control, waste, extraction limits and planetary protection determine what a settlement may alter and what it must preserve. These are not only scientific protocols; they distribute costs, rights and obligations across generations.
The operating economy can therefore be understood as a set of connected systems, each carrying a civilisational question:
Table 2: The settlement operating system. Each technical or commercial sector also creates rules about ownership, access, risk and authority. The final column identifies the institutional question that must be designed alongside the service itself.
Cognitive ecology
My research into distributed cognition and human-machine intelligence across deep tech and defence contexts identifies a specific structural risk. When AI systems mediate resource allocation, scheduling, health monitoring, and operational decision support in a constrained environment, the cognitive load distribution between humans and machines shifts over time. Crew members begin ratifying AI-generated recommendations rather than producing independent judgement. I have described this accumulation of unauditable AI-mediated cognitive work as intelligence debt. In terrestrial systems, intelligence debt can be caught and corrected through external audit. In a closed settlement with compounding dependency on automated systems, no immediately available external auditor and no easy exit, the cognitive architecture of the settlement becomes a civilisational variable.
Human and machine civilisation
AI in a permanent settlement will not simply sit beside human institutions and offer advice. Agents may schedule work, allocate energy, maintain infrastructure, negotiate with other systems, conduct research and act for people or organisations that are not present, and some will be embodied in the machines on which the settlement depends. The result would be an agentic civilisation, human and machine, whose decisions and operations are produced by both, with neither the boundaries of agency nor the location of responsibility remaining as obvious as they are when a person uses a tool.
That creates practical questions around identity, delegation and continuity. A settlement needs to know which agent acted, whose authority it carried, what information it used, what it was permitted to pass to another agent and who can alter or stop it, while also accounting for the organisations that update the model, repair the hardware, control the telemetry or withdraw the service. If an agent can enter a contract, deny access to medicine, redirect power or continue acting after the person who authorised it has died, the legal effect of that action and the route for challenging it have to be clear. Questions about whether machines should ever acquire legal or moral status may remain open for a long time, but the authority already being delegated to them will still need to be recorded and limited.
The built environment and sustaining meaning
The Stanford Torus designs of the 1970s remain an important early attempt to treat the aesthetic and sensory conditions of space habitation as design variables. Habitability and human-factors research has continued since then, but rarely as part of an integrated civilisational design programme.
Wonder is load-bearing. A settlement that fails to sustain human orientation toward meaning, purpose, and creative engagement across multi-year timescales will fail in every other dimension eventually. The built environment must carry psychological weight through deliberate sensory design: light, texture, spatial variation, acoustic range. Civilisations are built across generations, and the sensory and cultural conditions of the founding period determine whether the society that follows has the internal resources to endure long enough to become one. In a closed system where the novelty of being off-world has worn off and constraint has become permanent, environments that fail to carry psychological weight fail in every other dimension eventually. This is measurable and designable.
Population, education and cultural continuity
A settlement becomes something more than a mission when people begin to live entire lives within it. Crew-selection models assume healthy adults chosen for defined tasks. A civilisation must also make room for families, pregnancy, children, disability, ageing and people who did not choose the conditions into which they were born. Their rights cannot depend entirely on a parent’s employer, sponsoring state or value to the mission.
Education is part of the same continuity problem. A settlement must reproduce knowledge across medicine, engineering, agriculture, maintenance, law, science, defence and artistic practice. It must train new practitioners, preserve records, certify competence and allow the next generation to question the rules inherited from the founders. Legal status will also matter: crew members, employees, contractors, visitors, permanent residents and people born there cannot remain interchangeable categories. A community that cannot renew its knowledge or grant standing to people outside the founding workforce remains a base, not yet a civilisation.
A civilisation must produce culture, not just capture it. Music, visual art, literature, storytelling, performance, recreation and design allow communities to interpret experience, contest authority and transmit memory. Schools, libraries, laboratories, archives, studios and performance spaces are therefore part of settlement infrastructure. A habitat designed only for work and survival would leave no institution responsible for imagining what life there is for.
Religious belief and non-belief will be present in any permanent population, and new beliefs may develop around conditions that have no close equivalent on Earth. The length of a day, fasting, burial, reproductive medicine, the moral status of altered humans or intelligent machines, and the meaning of stewardship on an apparently lifeless world may all become practical questions when they affect food, healthcare, education, law or the use of shared space.
Death and ritual
Space agencies have operational procedures for medical emergencies and death, but permanent settlement raises a different question. A burial tradition cannot simply be transferred to a closed habitat with little soil, recycled atmosphere and severe constraints on mass and contamination. A small community will need ways to handle remains, grief, memory and shared loss within those physical limits. Ritual, ceremony and memorialisation therefore require cultural planning before the first death.
The System
These systems meet in concrete decisions. A pharmaceutical shortage becomes a question of rationing, finance and legitimate authority. An architectural decision changes health, privacy, status and energy demand. An employment contract may determine access to housing, medical care and return transport. An extraction licence becomes a decision about ownership, environmental restraint and obligations to future residents. An AI system procured for efficiency may become the mechanism through which work, resources and risk are allocated. Control of quantum-enabled sensing, timing or secure communications may confer authority over infrastructure on which everyone depends. A security system built to protect the habitat may also become its machinery of surveillance. An education system determines which knowledge, histories and artistic traditions persist, and whether later generations can challenge them.
The deeper requirement is adaptation. A permanent settlement will need to observe its own condition and change in response. The habitat may adjust air, temperature, light, shielding and the use of space; agriculture will adjust crops, nutrients, water and microbial balance; medicine may adjust care as physiology changes; manufacturing will redirect scarce material towards emerging failures; education will rebuild capability when expertise is lost.
The economy must respond to scarcity without allowing control of essential goods to become control of people. Governance must revise rules as evidence changes and relinquish emergency powers when the emergency ends and culture must create forms of meaning for experiences that did not exist on Earth.
This is not the same as optimising everything. Highly optimised systems can become brittle, and adaptive systems can become coercive. Every control loop contains choices: what is measured, what counts as normal or safe, who sets the target, who may intervene and who can override the system. A settlement that senses everything but cannot be contested becomes a system of surveillance, and a settlement that adjusts everything but cannot be refused becomes a system of control.
An off-world civilisation must be designed so that it is capable of redesigning itself without losing coherence, legitimacy or the accumulated knowledge on which survival depends.
Civilisation design lies at these interfaces. It does not replace architecture, medicine, pharmaceuticals, law, finance, education, defence, science or engineering. It makes visible the consequences their decisions create for one another and for the people who must live inside the resulting system.
The Clean Sheet
The same constraints that make this problem urgent also create an unusual design opportunity.
Every civilisational system on Earth carries centuries of accumulated compromise. Healthcare is the clearest example because it is organised around specialisms, departments and institutional structures that evolved to manage throughput and liability rather than as a single coherent system. A patient with intersecting physiological, psychological and cognitive conditions may move between departments that use different frameworks, language and data. The result can function brilliantly in parts while remaining fragmented as a whole.
Space gives us the option to change that.
A permanent space settlement is a zero-based design environment. There is no inherited institutional architecture, no legacy specialism structure and no regulatory sediment produced by centuries of incremental adjustment. Its founders will still inherit law, language, professional norms and sponsor relationships from Earth, but the physical environment will force many of those arrangements to be reconsidered.
Health can be organised around the interaction of physiological, psychological and cognitive conditions, with AI incorporated deliberately rather than added later. Governance can be built for delay, scarcity and confinement while still recognising the legal and political systems from which the settlement began. Food can be treated simultaneously as nutrition, social contact and culture.
Business, law, public finance and industry can be designed with the same attention to their interactions: how employment affects housing, how ownership of life-support infrastructure affects political power, and how pharmaceutical scarcity becomes a rule about whose health is protected. Contracts, taxation, insurance, insolvency, procurement, labour rights and intellectual property must be designed for a place where market exit and physical exit are not the same thing. Education, justice, cultural production, conflict resolution and resource allocation must also be designed for continuity across generations.
But are these inherited categories even the right ones? If we set aside the terms and structures we already know and live by, what might we design, how might we re-approach mechanisms, boundaries and systems?
The opportunity is rare, but not unprecedented. New communities, constitutions and intentional societies have been designed before, and every settlement carries practices from its origin culture. An off-world settlement is unusual because its physical conditions will force many of those practices to be reconsidered at once. It allows us to directly ask: what must these systems do, in these conditions, for the people who will live within them, and what form should they take?
The risk is that terrestrial templates are imported without examining whether they fit. Early choices will create path dependence: routines, spatial layouts and decision rules become more expensive to change once people rely on them. The design work therefore needs to begin before settlement, while the institutions themselves remain open to revision after arrival.
Who Lands First Will Shape the Civilisation
There is a further problem that few in the current space conversation are addressing: the first crew to establish a permanent presence will seed the civilisation that evolves from it. Their governance norms, their social patterns, the authority they give to machine systems, their methods of conflict resolution, their food rituals, their tolerance for dissent: all of it becomes the founding culture.
Founding conditions do not determine everything that follows, but they create path dependence. In early Rome, republican political authority developed alongside institutions for granting and limiting military command. In Massachusetts Bay, Puritan ideals shaped political institutions whose influence outlived the colony’s founding generation. Once early choices are encoded in institutional behaviour, spatial design and social expectation, changing them becomes harder and more costly.
Different sponsors will bring different institutional defaults. A military mission may privilege command, discipline and mission completion. A commercial operation may privilege contract, efficiency and resource return. Neither outcome is inevitable, and later crews will not be passive inheritors. But the first settlement will establish precedents before anyone has agreed what those precedents should be. Who lands first is therefore more than a logistics race; it is a civilisational design question.
The institutional tendencies are starkly different:
Table 3: Founding models and the institutional tendencies they may create. These are tendencies, not predictions. An actual settlement may combine elements of all three. Arrangements useful during an initial emergency or construction phase may become liabilities if they persist unchanged, and later residents can reinforce, adapt or reject the founding choices.
The Space Civilisation Lab™
My background is in psychology, technology and design, and that combination influences how I see the opportunity. I am interested in what sustained constraint does to people and groups, how emerging technology, AI and automation redistribute judgement, how environments unlike Earth’s change what we know how to do, and which arrangements are chosen, inherited or simply allowed to become normal in those environments.
The Space Civilisation Lab™ exists to make civilisation design a solvable research problem. It draws on several years of framework development and practitioner access across space, defence and intelligence, bringing together astrobiology, behavioural science, architecture, governance, law, economics, education, theology and philosophy, cultural practice, AI, robotics and engineering, because many of the decisions that matter sit between those fields.
It treats civilisation design as an empirical discipline that should be as rigorous, as well resourced and as urgent as the engineering, scientific and commercial programmes already receiving billions in investment.
Some questions can be investigated now using evidence from spaceflight and analogue environments; others depend on observations we do not yet have, technologies not yet built, or concepts inherited from Earth that may prove inadequate elsewhere. The Lab will define open questions and areas of discovery around new planetary institutions, technologies and systems operating between planets, then bring together small groups that can examine them through different disciplinary lenses, because the answers involve empirical evidence as well as political, ethical, spiritual/theological and cultural judgement. Experiments will likely produce questions we had not thought to ask. This follows the long-horizon approach in The Architecture of Wonder and the relational account of human-machine systems in The Human-Robot Intersection.
A well-designed space civilisation is one:
Where food production is integrated with social ritual so that eating sustains the community it feeds.
Where governance is built for closure, with legitimate authority that can act without becoming absolute.
Where the economic constitution establishes who owns essential systems, how common goods are financed and which rights cannot depend on employment or sponsor approval.
Where the built environment carries psychological weight through light, texture and spatial variation, so that wonder is renewable rather than a novelty that depletes.
Where human-AI systems have auditable boundaries, and where sensing, communications and computational infrastructure can be independently scrutinised.
Where health is treated as a unified ecology, with resilient pharmaceutical and clinical systems rather than inherited silos.
Where education, science, music and the arts transmit knowledge while allowing the settlement to produce a culture of its own.
Where death has a protocol, grief has a space, and the cultural infrastructure for meaning is treated as load-bearing.
This civilisation is designable before the rockets land.
Much of this can be designed from Earth, but it cannot be specified in full. The ISS has been continuously occupied for more than twenty-five years, generating data on physiology, psychology and group dynamics that ground studies cannot reproduce. Mars-500 produced its findings because people were placed inside a closed facility and observed over time. Bone loss and microbiome change were measured because astronauts lived in microgravity and researchers collected data before, during and after flight.
Conditions will emerge that no framework anticipated, and social dynamics will develop that no governance model predicted. The Moon’s extended periods of daylight and darkness may interact with habitat design, work schedules and human psychology in ways that ground simulations cannot fully capture. The cognitive load of AI-mediated decisions under genuine existential constraint, where a wrong call can kill everyone in the habitat, will differ from any analogue study.
All of this changes what ‘design’ means. The aim, then, should not be a finished blueprint. It should be institutions capable of observing their own effects, revising their rules and learning before strain becomes crisis. That requires baseline protocols and clear variables, but also room to change them as the settlement produces new evidence. A founding crew therefore needs more than technical maintenance expertise. It also needs people capable of studying and redesigning the social systems emerging around them.
The Window
The timelines are no longer abstract. At the time of writing, NASA was targeting no earlier than 1 April 2026 for Artemis II. Its revised architecture called for a crewed low-Earth-orbit demonstration in 2027 and the first Artemis lunar landing in 2028. An enduring lunar presence is the stated objective, though permanent settlement has no fixed timetable.
The spending is already substantial. NASA’s Inspector General estimated in 2021 that Artemis-related expenditure across fiscal years 2012 to 2025 would reach $93 billion. In 2024, the World Economic Forum and McKinsey projected a $1.8 trillion global space economy by 2035, although much of that value will come from space-enabled services used on Earth.
The asymmetry is not that human research is absent. NASA and other agencies already fund work on health, behavioural performance, food systems and habitability. The work is fragmented. Far less connects those domains to local governance, belief, culture, ritual and the distribution of authority between people and automated systems.The missing layer is a shared framework that treats them as parts of the same civilisational problem.
That is what the Space Civilisation Lab seeks to change.
The pattern across every high-stakes physical system I have studied is consistent: technical capability outpaces institutional readiness, and the gap is where catastrophe accumulates.
The camping phase, when the first arrivals use landers or temporary modules while more durable habitats are assembled, is already being planned. Transport, power, shielding, construction and resource extraction all have engineering programmes behind them. The major technical subsystems have owners, specifications and test plans. Commercial systems will have investors, contracts and operating models. The underdeveloped design problem is the interfaces between them: how employment determines housing, how ownership of life support becomes political power, how pharmaceutical scarcity becomes a rationing rule, how control of sensing and communications infrastructure becomes authority, and how a security system changes civil power.
Nobody is accountable for designing what happens at breakfast on day 400. Who sits where. Who decides what gets rationed when supply is delayed. What the crew does when someone dies. What the walls look like after a year of looking at nothing else. Whether the founding culture of that settlement will produce a civilisation worth building, or one that nobody chose.
When the camping phase ends, a civilisation will emerge whether anyone has designed for it or not. And the opportunity reaches back to Earth: designing systems for another planet may show us how to rebuild some of our own.
References
Basner, M. et al. (2013). Mars 520-d mission simulation reveals protracted crew hypokinesis and alterations of sleep duration and timing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(7), 2635–2640.
Tafforin, C. et al. (2013). The Mars-500 crew in daily life activities: An ethological study. Acta Astronautica, 91, 69–78.
Basner, M. et al. (2014). Psychological and behavioral changes during confinement in a 520-day simulated interplanetary mission to Mars. PLOS ONE, 9(3), e93298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093298
Wang, Y. et al. (2014). During the long way to Mars: Effects of 520 days of confinement (Mars500) on the assessment of affective stimuli and stage alteration in mood and plasma hormone levels. PLOS ONE, 9(3), e87087.
Stavnichuk, M. et al. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of bone loss in space travelers. npj Microgravity, 6, 13.
Gabel, L. et al. (2022). Incomplete recovery of bone strength and trabecular microarchitecture at the distal tibia 1 year after return from long duration spaceflight. Scientific Reports, 12, 9446.
Voorhies, A.A. et al. (2019). Study of the impact of long-duration space missions at the International Space Station on the astronaut microbiome. Scientific Reports, 9, 9911.
Kanas, N. et al. (2009). Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions. Acta Astronautica, 64, 659–677.
Garrett-Bakelman, F.E. et al. (2019). The NASA Twins Study: A multidimensional analysis of a year-long human spaceflight. Science, 364(6436), eaau8650.
Canadian Space Agency. What happens to bones in space? asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/astronauts/space-medicine/bones.asp
SpaceX. (2025, 13 October). Starship’s eleventh flight test. https://www.spacex.com/launches/starship-flight-11
NASA. (2026, 27 February). NASA adds mission to Artemis lunar program, updates architecture. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-adds-mission-to-artemis-lunar-program-updates-architecture/
NASA. (2026, 27 March). Artemis II crew arrives at launch site, shares Moon mascot. https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/03/27/artemis-ii-crew-arrives-at-launch-site-shares-moon-mascot/
NASA Office of Inspector General. (2021). NASA’s management of the Artemis missions (IG-22-003). https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ig-22-003.pdf
NASA/JPL. (2024, updated 8 November). Speaking Percy’s language: How to talk so Perseverance will listen. https://science.nasa.gov/blogs/speaking-percys-language-how-to-talk-so-perseverance-will-listen/
NASA. Europa Clipper: Science. https://science.nasa.gov/mission/europa-clipper/why-europa-europa-up-close/
NASA. Enceladus. https://science.nasa.gov/saturn/moons/enceladus/
NASA. Asteroid facts. https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/asteroids/facts/
Congressional Research Service. (2024, 29 July). Space resource extraction: Overview and issues for Congress (R48144). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48144
Tesei, D., Jewczynko, A., Lynch, A. M., & Urbaniak, C. (2022). Understanding the complexities and changes of the astronaut microbiome for successful long-duration space missions. Life, 12(4), 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12040495
NASA. (2025). Risk of altered immune response. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esdmd/hhp/immune-risk/
Song, B.-S. et al. (2009). Korean space food development: Ready-to-eat Kimchi, a traditional Korean fermented vegetable, sterilized with high-dose gamma irradiation. Advances in Space Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2009.03.032 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117709002026
Food fermentation in space: Opportunities and challenges. (2025). iScience, 28(4), 112189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2025.112189
Inoue, N., Matsuzaki, I., & Ohshima, H. (2004). Group interactions in SFINCSS-99: Lessons for improving behavioral support programs. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(7 Suppl), C28–C35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15267073/
Drogula, F. K. (2019). The institutionalization of warfare in early Rome. In Romans at War. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/oa-edit/10.4324/9781351063500-2/institutionalization-warfare-early-rome-fred-drogula
Mazzacano, P. J. (2011). Puritanism, godliness, and political development in Boston and the General Court (1630–1640). The Journal Jurisprudence, 12, 599–678. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1982897
NASA. Human Research Program. https://www.nasa.gov/hrp/about-hrp/
NASA. Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog (CHAPEA). https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/chapea/about-chapea/
World Economic Forum. (2024, 8 April). Space economy set to triple to $1.8 trillion by 2035. https://www.weforum.org/press/2024/04/space-economy-set-to-triple-to-1-8-trillion-by-2035-new-research-reveals/
United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs. (2017). International Space Law: United Nations Instruments. https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2017/stspace/stspace61rev_2_0_html/V1605998-ENGLISH.pdf
Mercer, C. R. et al. (2025). Quantum sensing for NASA science missions. EPJ Quantum Technology. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250004348
Committee on Space Research. (2024). COSPAR Policy on Planetary Protection. Space Research Today, 220, 14–36. https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/assets/uploads/2024/07/PP-Policy_SRT_220-July-2024.pdf
NASA. (2021). The Human Body in Space. https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/the-human-body-in-space/
NASA. (2024). Earth-Independent Medical Operations Concept of Operations. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20240001402
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2023). Technical Considerations for Medical Devices with Physiologic Closed-Loop Control Technology. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/technical-considerations-medical-devices-physiologic-closed-loop-control-technology
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.
Rajani, R. (2026, 5 January). The Architecture of Wonder: Why Long-Horizon Thinking and Doing Is the Foundation of Civilisation-Scale Progress. Future Tense. https://rakhirajani.substack.com/p/the-architecture-of-wonder
Rajani, R., & Blank, J. (2026, 12 January). The Human-Robot Intersection. The Near Term. https://thenearterm.substack.com/p/the-humanrobot-intersection
© Rakhi Rajani 2026. All rights reserved.