ISSI Bern > Working Groups > Anthropogenic Footprint in Outer Space

Purpose: Writing the volume

Anthropogenic Footprint in Outer Space – A Comprehensive Scientific Review

In the context established by A Call to Address Humanity’s Cosmic Footprint and its acknowledgement in theUNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) Report on the Ethics of Space Exploration and Utilisation — the Working Group is tasked with producing the research volume Anthropogenic Footprint in Outer Space: A Comprehensive Scientific Review.

The volume represents an initial operationalisation step within a broader scientific programme, establishing the scientific grounding required to develop an integrated cross-domain overview of current and potential future anthropogenic footprint in outer space.

The objective is to support evidence-based understanding and informed international dialogue. The Working Group operates independently as a scientific initiative hosted by the International Space Science Institute (ISSI).

ISSI Scientific Report Series cover
ISSI Scientific Report Series (illustrative cover image)

Key Elements

  • Scientific coordination and writing phase: 2026–2028 – Two coordination sessions at ISSI (one week each) for 15 people (2026 and 2027)
  • ISSI Scientific Report Series (Springer Nature)
  • Open Access: freely readable and downloadable worldwide
  • Publication: 2028 (indicative)

The Working Group contributes to scientific understanding and does not represent a policy or advocacy position.

Objectives, Scientific Relevance, Timeliness and Interdisciplinarity

2026-2028 ISSI Workgroup

Objective: The Working Group conducts a scientific synthesis on humanity’s cosmic impact, structured as a reference book and published as part of the ISSI Scientific Report Series. This work will provide a comprehensive and foundational resource, elaborating a research strategy, an initial classification and an interdisciplinary inventory of impacts of space activities on the space environment. It will include state-of-the-art reviews for each impact type, comparisons with natural processes, identification of knowledge gaps and epistemological challenges, and the theoretical foundations towards a registry on anthropogenic footprint.

Scientific Relevance: No comprehensive interdisciplinary review currently exists on humanity’s cosmic footprint, nor any overarching registry or related scientific synthesis. Efforts are either regional (e.g. Earth’s orbits — Lawrence et al. 2022) or lunar-focused (Open Lunar Registry), or have restricted focus (e.g. radio-leakage from mobile towers — Saide et al. 2023). Entire subdomains remain unaddressed (e.g. combustible plumes in deep space), or require modeling (e.g. electromagnetic footprint). Authors such as McDowell (2019, 2024) emphasize the need for a Deep Space Catalog. Existing international registries focus on specific categories of objects and do not systematically address several relevant impact domains.

Context and Timeliness: The rapid acceleration of human space activities is altering extraterrestrial environments, causing significant, large-scale, and potentially irreversible impacts. These include geomorphologic alterations, modifications of celestial dynamics, spread of chemical contaminants, biological contamination risks, and alterations of electromagnetic signatures. Collectively, these effects constitute humanity’s lasting legacy in space and warrant rigorous scientific investigation due to implications for future exploration, ethics, and governance.

Interdisciplinarity & ISSI Added Value: This Working Group integrates expertise from astrophysics, planetary sciences, exobiology, archival science, space history, philosophy, and computational modeling. ISSI’s neutral international environment enables intensive face-to-face collaboration necessary for coherent methodological synthesis.

Deliverable

Book

Book Content (Chapters)

  1. Introduction & Scientific Context: Concise overview accessible to non-specialists; outlines scientific rationale, objectives, and scope.
  2. Methodological Framework: Defines classification criteria, epistemological foundations, methodological standards, and interdisciplinary integration strategies.
  3. Detailed Review by Impact Type: State-of-the-art synthesis including literature assessment, models, uncertainty analyses, and comparisons with natural processes.
  4. Knowledge Gaps & Research Priorities: Identifies unanswered scientific questions and future research priorities.
  5. Theoretical Foundations & Guidelines: Recommendations for scientifically rigorous cosmic footprint registries, databases, APIs, and visualization systems.

Audience, Uniqueness & Value: Addressed to scholars in space science, humanities, policymakers, and the educated public, this book offers the first rigorous interdisciplinary synthesis of humanity’s cosmic footprint. It identifies critical research gaps and proposes methodological foundations for future registries and governance tools.

Bibliography

  • Normier, A. et al. (2025). A Call to Address Humanity’s Cosmic Footprint. Nature Astronomy.
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-025-02606-7
  • UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) (2025). Report on the Ethics of Space Exploration and Utilisation.
    https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000395058
  • Space Research Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics (2026).
  • Footprint of DSN network. Astrophys. J. Lett. (2025).
  • A call to address Humanity’s Cosmic Footprint: Normier, A. et al. Nat. Astron. (2025).
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-025-02606-7
  • Inoculating life in the solar system. Space Policy (2025).
  • The case for Mars terraforming research. Nat. Astron. (2025).
  • Indigenous people and others need a say. Nat. Astron. (2025).
  • Technosignature detectability range. Astrophys. J. Lett. (2025).
  • Asteroid redirection and unanticipated ejecta: Fenucci, M. & Carbognani, A. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 528, 6660–6665 (2024).
  • Anthropocene in the solar system: Holcomb, J. A., Mandel, R. D. & Wegmann, K. W. Nat. Geosci. 17, 2–4 (2023).
  • Chemical spread of exhaust gases: Shipley, S. T., Metzger, P. T. & Lane, J. E. In Earth and Space 2014 (ASCE, 2014).
  • Inoculating life beyond the solar system: Gros, C. Astrophys. Space Sci. 361, 324 (2016).
  • Comparison with natural forcing in the solar system: Beech, M. Am. J. Astron. Astrophys. 6, 81 (2018).
  • Comparison with natural forcing beyond the solar system: Melosh, H. J. Astrobiology 3, 207–215 (2003).
  • To seed or not to seed: Soryl, A. & Sandberg, A. Acta Astronaut. 232, 397–404 (2025).
  • Planetary protection — a microbial ethics approach: Cockell, C. S. Space Policy 21, 287–292 (2005).
  • Ethical value of spreading life: Sivula, O. Utilitas 34, 178–194 (2022).
  • Planetary protection policy: Ehrenfreund, P. et al. Space Res. Today 10–13 (2024).
  • Footprint of radio telecommunication systems: Saide, R. C., Garrett, M. A. & Heeralall-Issur, N. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. (2023).
  • Geopolitical implications of SETI: Wright, J. T., Haramia, C. & Swiney, G. Space Policy 63, 101517 (2023).
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spacepol.2022.101517
  • Ethics of messaging: Haqq-Misra, J. & Baum, S. D. Space Policy 25, 141–149 (2009).
  • The need for global coordination: Crawford, I. A. In Astrobiology Ethics (eds. Chon-Torres, O. & Peters, T.) 313–338 (Scrivener, 2021).
  • The case for space environmentalism: Lawrence, A., Rawls, M. L., Jah, M. et al. Nat. Astron. 6, 428–435 (2022).