SPECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE TOPIC A: THE PRIVATIZATION OF OUTER SPACE EXPLORATION

MUNUC 32 Update Paper

SpaceX Reveals Candidate Landing Sites for 2020s Mission This past September, space law and history writer Robert Zimmerman drew attention to images labeled “candidate landing sites for SpaceX Starship” from the University of Arizona’s

HiRise camera. This camera is aboard NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. While the images are available to view on the University of Arizona’s website (as well as around the internet), they were released with relatively little fanfare considering their possible historic implications. Essentially, Elon

Musk’s company has quietly selected its potential landing sites for its planned Mars landings in the next decade. SpaceX’s choice comes on the heels of other private space exploration thought, including Musk’s statement that “Mars should be nuked” before humans arrive on the planet.

Five out of the six sites are located along the line of 40 degrees latitude in between two major Mars plains, Arcadia Planitia and Amazonis Planitia. Although obviously much colder than

Earth, this latitude provides a relatively mild climate human settlement. Additionally, SpaceX and

NASA have uncovered strong evidence supporting the existence of buried ice underneath these five locations. This ice could be mined and turned into water, air, or rocket fuel—valuable resources for future Mars settlers. Although the sixth site is located half a world away, it has a similar latitude and its flat terrain would make landing there much safer. While these are all exciting developments, SPECPOL delegates should consider the repercussions of SpaceX’s actions. If SpaceX establishes a settlement, mines resources on Mars and uses its Mars missions for profit, how does that fit into the Outer Space Treaty which stipulates that no entity will claim sovereignty over outer space? How much oversight, if any, will national space agencies like NASA or CNSA have over private space companies? If SpaceX successfully lands and other private and public agencies follow (NASA hopes to place people on Mars by 2030), laws and resolutions will need to be rewritten to more comprehensively address space landings and the use of

Martian resources. Additionally, Musk’s decision to post the images with little ostentatiousness (a strange counter to his prior actions regarding his space company) give rise to questions regarding the transparency of private space exploration. Given that NASA is closely coordinating with SpaceX

(the pictures were taken on NASA’s MRO for instance), how much information and profit should

SpaceX be required to share with the public, if any? A fundamental question of this topic is how accessible expensive space travel should be for the public, as well as wealthy companies. Bibliography

Foust, Jeff. “SpaceX Studying Landing Sites for Mars Missions.” SpaceNews.com, March 20, 2017.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-studying-landing-sites-for-mars-missions/.

Mosher, Dave. “SpaceX Is Eyeing These 9 Places on Mars for Landing Its First Starship Rocket

Missions.” Business Insider. Business Insider, September 3, 2019.

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starship-mars-landing-sites-map-hirise-2019-9.

Perez, Martin. “Mars 2020 Mission Overview.” NASA. NASA, July 15, 2016.

https://www.nasa.gov/mars2020/overview.

Smith, Yvette. “Jezero Crater, Mars 2020's Landing Site.” NASA. NASA, May 28, 2019.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/jezero-crater-mars-2020s-landing-site.

Wall, Mike. “Looks Like Elon Musk Is Serious About Nuking Mars.” Space.com. Space, August 21,

2019. https://www.space.com/elon-musk-serious-nuke-mars-terraforming.html.

Young, Chris. “Possible Landing Sites for SpaceX's Mars Mission Have Been Revealed.” Interesting

Engineering. Interesting Engineering, October 1, 2019.

https://interestingengineering.com/possible-landing-sites-for-spacexs-mars-mission-have-

been-revealed. SPECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE TOPIC A: THE PRIVATIZATION OF OUTER SPACE EXPLORATION

MUNUC 32 Update Paper

SpaceX’s Starship SN1 and Crew Dragon Near Completion According to CEO Elon Musk, SpaceX’s prototype spacecraft, the Starship SN1, will potentially be fully operational within three months as of January 4th, 2020. The Starship currently stands at around 50 meters in height and consists of two components: the spacecraft itself and a giant rocket dubbed the Super Heavy. Both components are completely reusable, which would dramatically reduce costs of spaceflights and allow for rapid and repeated launches. As a result, such a design would make space exploration much more economically feasible, with Musk stressing the colonization of Mars as being the primary objective. The production of the Starship is currently being finished in the South Texas town of Boca Chica, where the portion of the spacecraft responsible for protecting the propellant tank, known as the tank dome, is under production.

Additionally, Musk has stated that SpaceX hopes to create an entire line of Starships from SN1 to

SN20, making improvements with each new design.

The Starship SN1 is not, however, the first spacecraft that SpaceX has produced with intent of reaching Mars. Previously, the company had constructed a complete prototype dubbed the

Starship Mk1, but the tank dome of the spacecraft exploded during a cryogenic pressure test in

November 20, 2019. Despite these setbacks, Musk opted not to repair and retest the Starship Mk1, but instead to immediately move on to SpaceX’s more refined prototype designs, beginning production of two parallel prototypes at facilities in Boca Chica and Cape Canaveral, Florida.

However, while the prototype in Boca Chica has become the current Starship SN1, SpaceX has halted the production of the prototype in Cape Canaveral, opting for the Florida facility to instead work on constructing the company’s rockets called Falcons and a cargo spacecraft called the Crew

Dragon. While SpaceX currently uses the cargo capsule called Dragon to bring supplies to the

International Space Station, the new Crew Dragon would be piloted by an actual crew of personnel.

Aside from the launch of the Starship SN1, SpaceX hopes to complete the Crew Dragon’s final test demonstration in the near future. As such, with the arrival of a new decade, it seems that the construction of new and innovative spacecrafts has only accelerated, bringing with it an imminent and tangible future of space exploration. Bibliography

Wall, Mike. “SpaceX's New Starship Prototype Could Fly in Just 3 Months, Elon Musk Says.”

Space.com. Future, January 4, 2020, https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-prototype-

first-2020-flight-soon.html.

Wall, Mike. “SpaceX's 1st Full-Size Starship Prototype Suffers Anomaly in Pressure Test.”

Space.com. Future, November 20, 2019, https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-

prototype-anomaly-pressure-test.html.

SPECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE TOPIC B: OPIUM TRADE AND TRAFFICKING

MUNUC 32 Update Paper Education in Southeast Asia Since the start of the United States’ war in Afghanistan in late 2001, the U.S. and allied nations have spent billions in attempts to curb Afghan poppy cultivation. Poppies, which naturally produce opium, grow readily in Afghanistan’s climate. In addition to producing upwards of 80 percent of the global opium supply, the Afghan drug trade provides significant funding for the

Taliban. Both American and Afghan officials have acknowledged, however, that almost two decades of counter-narcotics efforts have actually resulted in increased levels of opium production. Due to a combination of the destabilization of the Taliban, explicitly counterproductive programs, and an uncoordinated approach to the problem, poppy production has almost tripled since the initial invasion.

In 2000, shortly before the invasion, poppy farming in Afghanistan was at an all-time low.

The Taliban’s then-leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, had issued an edict banning opium and the growing poppies of poppies; Afghanistan’s poppy farmers – primarily poor peasants – were unwilling to cross the Taliban, and poppy cultivation plummeted. But in combatting the Taliban and supporting the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, coalition forces dramatically altered the regional balance of power. This power vacuum resulted in less oversight for poppy farmers while the new administration’s rule of law reduced the severity of the punishment for poppy cultivation.

Moreover, recent reporting has revealed that many programs touted as effectively discouraging poppy cultivation have had little impact – or in some cases, an explicitly negative one.

In 2002, British officials offered Afghan farmers $700 an acre to destroy their poppy fields.

Superficially, the program was a success - $30 million was disbursed for the destruction of 40,000 acres. In reality, the program encouraged farmers to rapidly plant more poppies to collect from the fund; in some cases, farmers even harvested the opium sap before razing their fields and still received compensation, profiting twice from one field. During the Obama administration, the U.S. irrigated fields, renovated agricultural infrastructure, and paid farmers to encourage the cultivation of wheat or pomegranates. But the renovations (and money) worked equally well to grow the more profitable poppies.

The past two decades of counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan have also been characterized by a lack of coordination. Interviews with key military and diplomatic figures illustrate how strategic disagreements between national governments, U.S. agencies, and individual leaders and programs have produced an incoherent and inconsistent effort. Despite these consistent failures, political and military leaders throughout the U.S. and its allies have publicly promoted many of these counter-narcotics programs as successful, based on misleading or anecdotal (and unrepresentative) evidence. As the American military presence in Afghanistan continues into its nineteenth year, poppy farming has only become more integral to the Afghan economy. Not only have coalition diplomats and military officers failed to coordinate their counter-narcotics efforts, elected officials across multiple U.S. administrations have misled the world, shielding their counter- narcotics programs from accountability and interrogation.

Bibliography

SIGAR Office of Special Projects, “Quarterly Report to Congress. Section 3: Reconstruction Update

- Counternarcotics,” Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, October

30th, 2019. https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/quarterlyreports/2019-10-30qr-section3-

counternarcotics.pdf.

Whitlock, Craig, “The Afghanistan Papers: Overwhelmed by Opium,” Washington Post, December

9, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-

papers/afghanistan-war-opium-poppy-production/.