On December 30, 1973, the space crew of Skylab 4—Commander Lieutenant Colonel Gerald P. Carr, Dr. Edward G. Gibson, and Lieutenant Colonel William R. Pogue—called for an urgent meeting with NASA’s Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas. As the New Year loomed, the team, led by Carr, expressed their strong objections to the stringent work schedules set by NASA officials at the Johnson Space Center.1 Demanding tasks had to be rushed to completion, regardless of physical strain or logistical complexity. Time-sensitive observations and photographs of the Sun and the Comet Kohoutek had to be made with telescopes and astrophysical precision instruments. Infrared cameras and heat-seeking sensors had to be employed to take images of Earth’s surface. All throughout, exhaustive physiological monitoring via athletic activities, medical experiments, and blood sample analyses had to be rigorously recorded. NASA sent daily teletyped to-do plans down to the minute, even for basic self-care. Sleep and bathroom breaks were restricted; exercise was programmed after meals and had to be completed on a full stomach. Many of these duties had been added by NASA shortly before launch with former veteran staff in mind, forcing an unrealistically high standard upon Skylab 4: an all-rookie crew with no spaceflight experience prior to this mission. To make matters worse, Skylab 4 also had an inadequate acclimation period for avoiding space adaptation syndrome (motion sickness in outer space). Expected to function in low-gravity conditions with insufficient training, mistakes by the crew were unavoidable.
The variable performance of Skylab 4 received consistent coverage in US media.2 By the time objections were raised with NASA’s ground control, tensions were running high. Fortunately, these year-end conversations proved to be a turning point. NASA officials adjusted their work expectations for the group, and further approved adequate periods of leisure and rest. Nevertheless, the Skylab 4 crew still had to push through a record-breaking period on duty—84 days, 1 hour, 15 minutes, and 30 seconds—the longest that humans had ever spent in orbit. This is all the more remarkable given that NASA extended the team’s mission, adding an entire month to its original 56-day plan. Drawn-out work hours were the norm, with no regular 9-to-5 shifts or reliable periods of rest. Weekends and holidays were not considered time off; extravehicular activities took place on Thanksgiving and Christmas. After Skylab 4, NASA would standardize working conditions, respecting designated breaks and periods of sleep, and stipulating that at least one veteran pilot was required to be present for each mission. These victories were brought about by Carr, Gibson, and Pogue following a “sensitivity session,” or what some have referred to as the first astronaut labor strike in space.3 Despite that no actual direct action took place, work grievances were clearly communicated by the Skylab 4 crew. Commander Carr stated the situation plainly: no one should “be expected to work a 16-hour day for 85 days on the ground,” he said, “so I really don’t see why we should be expected to do it up here.”4 None of the Skylab 4 team went on a NASA mission again.
Since the earliest crewed missions, decisions regarding working conditions for astronauts—understood here to include cosmonauts, taikonauts, and vyomonauts, among others—were shouldered by state-led agencies. Yet occupational health and safety guidelines in space are no longer the sole purview of governmental officials. Astronauts today are being hired to operate human-rating spacecraft that is designed, built, and deployed by private companies. Over the last decade, NASA has shifted from manufacturing rockets, capsules, and landers with longstanding contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin to outsourcing entire missions to newcomers like SpaceX and Blue Origin, owned by Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos respectively: two major players in what has been dubbed the “billionaire space race.”5 Musk’s recent appointment as a Special Governmental Employee under newly re-elected President Donald J. Trump could prove to be a gamechanger. As head of the Department of Governmental Efficiency, his proposed slashes in federal spending seem poised to threaten NASA’s budget.6 Despite clear conflicts of interest, Musk has the power of influencing regulations on corporations such as his own SpaceX—not to mention those who enforce them.7 The nomination of billionaire tech entrepreneur and SpaceX business associate Jared Isaacman as NASA’s administrator further confirms this direction. Isaacman funded and commanded the private spaceflight Polaris Dawn in September 2024, where a SpaceX Crew Dragon travelled 1,400 kilometers into deep space—the furthest trip from Earth since NASA’s Apollo program.
The increasing expansion of “Big Space” is imminent, in no small part due to space tycoons pursuing interplanetary ambitions or the lucrative promise of space tourism, satellite telecommunications systems, and off-Earth mining. An equally important goal is to provide future services to NASA and additional governmental space agencies: the US company Firefly Aerospace has just successfully placed the second private lunar lander ever on the Moon, having been launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9. 8 But the fastmoving transition by NASA towards private space companies has not been free of real-world consequences, particularly when astronauts are involved. A case in point is Sunita “Suni” Williams and Barry “Butch” Wilmore, two retired Navy captains and astronauts for NASA’s Commercial Crew program, founded in 2014 to meet the growing demand for “commercial astronauts” certified by the Federal Aviation Administration.9 At the time of writing, Williams and Wilmore are orbiting our planet, unable to come back home. What began as an eight-day crew test flight in a Boeing Starliner-1 has transformed into an eight-month stay at the International Space Station. Helium leakages and thruster malfunctions led NASA to determine that the Starliner-1 was unsafe to bring Wiliams and Wilmore back to Earth—a cautious decision, likely informed by the memory of technical malfunctions that led to the earlier Space Shuttle Challenger and Columbia disasters. An attempt for their return was set for February 2025 in a new SpaceX Crew Dragon Endurance. However, the current prospect is that Williams and Wilmore will now travel home on March 12, 2025, making their time in orbit just three months shy of a year—among the lengthier unplanned spaceflights.10
President Trump and Musk have both claimed that Williams and Wilmore were left “stranded” in space: an accusation that has stirred strong responses among the astronaut community and NASA officials alike.11 In point of fact, Williams and Wilmore remain in the ISS due to technical problems that have delayed the rollout of new SpaceX spacecraft, ultimately leading NASA to choose a previously used capsule for their return. Their protracted stay in outer space is not without consequences. A day in zero-G is effectively a round-the-clock shift on the body and mind. Extended periods in orbit compromise astronauts’ physiological, anatomical, and psychological condition. Significant media attention has been given to Sunita Williams’s health, given her total time in space—almost 600 days and counting.12 Designated as commander of Expedition 72 (the current ISS mission), Williams is well-known for her stamina. She was the first astronaut to complete the Boston Marathon and a triathlon in orbit; fittingly, she also holds the record for the most spacewalks by any female astronaut: sixty-two hours and six minutes in the vacuum of space. Although her condition is reportedly stable, this unanticipated stay on the ISS will still take a toll both for her and Wilmore, aged 59 and 61 respectively. Likewise, the decision to remain in the ISS was not without additional gambles. In the unlikely event of an emergency that required an evacuation from the ISS before their departure, Williams and Wilmore would have had to return to Earth as unsuited crew members in makeshift seats, lacking appropriate protection for re-entry—a situation akin to not having enough room or safety vests on a lifeboat.13 This is due to design incompatibilities between Boeing and SpaceX spacecraft, including with intravehicular spacesuits: a proprietary issue that NASA has defended to stimulate private innovation, yet which poses significant risks in predicaments such as this.
No matter how well-planned, working in space is one of the most perilous jobs available. Astronauts are rigorously trained to face the exigencies of space exploration: unforeseen schedule changes, accumulation of electric charge in orbit, and even technical problems with life-support systems are par from the course. Yet the vast distances and inhospitable environments beyond Earth’s atmosphere place definitive limits on aid and rescue efforts during a crisis. In recognition of this tremendous vulnerability, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty specifies that astronauts require “all possible assistance in the event of accident, distress, or emergency landing,” making their physical protection a paramount global concern “as the envoys of [hu]mankind.”14 This agreement was endorsed by 115 countries, with the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom as opening cosigners. Mischances by private industry, however, lack similar precedent. What are the safety conditions that should be guaranteed for an astronaut at work today, particularly when vital risks are taken for commercial rather than solely public endeavors? Indeed, what protections are in place for astronauts and global citizens from the consequences of brash space entrepreneurship both in outer space and on Earth? The mid-flight explosion of an uncrewed SpaceX Starship rocket last January, causing burning debris, airplane diversion, and deadly contamination of wildlife ecosystems over Caribbean islands serves as one of many stark reminders of the potential consequences of unregulated space industries for the majority who never leave our planet.15
Space lawyers, activists, and scholars have increasingly advocated for more inclusive space exploration policies, including the formalization of astronaut labor rights and their enforcement off Earth.16 Their calls are counter to the strong anti-union stance held by Musk and Bezos, who have both contested the authority of the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the US federal agency that ensures the protection of worker’s rights in the private sector, including the right to form unions.17 With Trump’s massive dismissal of NLRB staff, it is all but given that protections will diminish for all US corporate workers, commercial astronauts included.18 This issue proves timely with the current Artemis missions: a NASA-led effort to achieve a permanent human presence on the Moon in conjunction with private companies, who will create mission-specific equipment and spacecraft for propulsion, landing, and structural support. Artemis astronauts are federal employees yet will nevertheless interface continuously with corporate partners in the operation of “payloads”—a term that refers to crew, munitions, scientific instruments, or other equipment, yet which has regained its original meaning from marine trade as revenue-producing cargo. For Artemis, this cargo includes landers, robotic arms, drills, and spectrometers, to name a few examples. Artemis I, an uncrewed test flight, was carried out successfully in 2022. Delays notwithstanding, Artemis II is expected to orbit around the Moon in 2026, and, by mid-2027, Artemis III will land humans at the Moon’s southern pole to begin surface operations related to surveying and lunar material extraction.19
The framework for these efforts is the 2020 Artemis Accords: a multilateral agreement put forward by the first Trump administration in recognition of the global benefits of space exploration and commerce, which opened a path towards “moon mining.”20 In his Executive Order for the Artemis Accords, the first Trump administration already made it clear that outer space was not a global commons from the perspective of the United States.21 In his 2025 inauguration speech, President Trump went even further, declaring that during his second presidential term US astronauts would “plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars.”22 Trump concluded his first address to Congress on March 5, 2025 with this same pledge. Such statements could signal a potential downgrading of the Artemis Accords in a nod to Elon Musk, who has called for closing of the ISS early and stated “We’re going straight to Mars. The Moon is a distraction.”23 Equally, Trump’s eradication of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across US federal agencies could prove detrimental to NASA overall as well as Artemis, which has Christina Koch and Victor Glover as part of its crew: the first woman and African-American astronauts to step onto the Moon.24
For the time being, the Artemis missions remain on the table, albeit with serious critiques and growing pressure opposing its excess spending and an overshot budget. In late February at a hearing of the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, experts urged NASA to revise Artemis’s budget and spacecraft capability. Additional advice included further corporate outsourcing for heavy-lift programs to guarantee that US astronauts would set foot on the moon by the 2027 deadline.25 Despite its bolstering by Trump, much of the groundwork for the oversized influence of private spaceflight was initially put in place by President Barack Obama. His 2010 National Space Policy already underscored the need to promote “a robust and competitive US commercial space sector.”26 Through the SPACE (Spurring Private Aerospace Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship) Act of 2015, Obama granted US companies the right to possess and sell resources from the Moon, asteroids, and other celestial bodies.27 As with the Artemis Accords, which, despite early hesitancy, now have 52 signatory countries, the SPACE Act has been criticized for prioritizing US commercial interests at the expense of shared international goals. In response, China and Russia announced the formation of the International Lunar Research Station Cooperation Organization (ILRSCO) in anticipation of placing humans on the Moon by 2030, an initiative supported by 14 countries.28 Both Artemis and the ILRSCO can be interpreted as standing in direct opposition to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which declares that “outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, use, occupation, or any other means.” Even so, the United States has arguably taken the lead in eroding this principle by fostering new space entrepreneurship—which parallels the historic and undue leverage of Global North nations over the extraction of mineral resources worldwide.29
Defining protection mechanisms for Artemis and all astronauts remains essential given the increasing expansion of corporate spaceflight. For now, the Artemis III crew is intended to participate in robotic mining explorations of ice formations within lunar craters—a potential in-situ source for drinking water, oxygen, and even rocket fuel to facilitate space exploration to Mars. These automated activities will nevertheless require hands-on work by astronauts to troubleshoot problems that may arise on the barren lunar surface. Acute temperature fluctuations take place constantly, with the lunar equator reaching 121°C (250°F) by day and dropping to -133°C (-208°F) at night.31 While the crater’s peaks burn hot with continuous sunlight, NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has recorded temperatures in its shadowed areas of -246°C (-410°F)—a temperature so severe that the bottom half of a spacesuit can freeze. Artemis III will also bear implacable solar radiation—over 150 times higher than on Earth. Amid these intensities, astronauts will experience a geologically active Moon under their feet, with not infrequent seismic tremors and landslides.32 Lastly, these astronauts will have to persevere through the “lunar day”: the equivalent of 700 hours on Earth or 29.5 terrestrial days, divided into approximately fourteen days of light and fourteen days in darkness. This does not just involve merely adapting a 24/7 Earth-based timeframe to the Moon—a challenge currently taken on with the establishment of Coordinated Lunar Time.33 As NASA has posited, it is a question of survival in the lunar night.34 All combined, these phenomena make Artemis III one of the most demanding missions in the history of space exploration.
Geological prospection of the Moon’s surface poses another major safety concern for Artemis astronauts: the manipulation of lunar regoliths, or granular fragments of rock rich in minerals such as oxygen and silicon, as well as metals such as iron and aluminum.35 To date, the only samples available on Earth are from the Apollo program and uncrewed governmental missions since, the latest being China’s Chang’e-6 in June 2024. These specimens are highly valuable for future planning on how to carry out mining on the Moon. Nevertheless, their handling is far from simple. Formed over billions of years of micro-meteor impacts, lunar dust is essentially powdered glass: a highly abrasive silicate grit with razor-sharp edges that, unlike Earth’s geology, are not smoothed by wind or waterflow weathering. These jagged forms adhere to skin, hair, and spacesuits, even ripping through the fabric of the latter. During the Apollo missions, lunar regoliths impaired the functioning of devices and equipment, particularly due to their electrostatic charge from constant exposure to sunlight. Furthermore, when tracked inside a spacecraft, Moon dust can become airborne and cause respiratory, ocular, and dermal ailments among the Apollo astronauts.36 The side effects of this toxic substance were first referred to as “lunar hay fever,” but NASA’s experts do not shy away from comparing regolith damage with silicosis or “black lung” disease: a highly painful lung fibrosis common in miners caused by the inhalation of silica particles.37
Only 12 individuals from the Apollo program have ever stepped foot on the Moon’s surface, the longest for a total of 75 hours. Regardless, six decades of space exploration provide a well-documented picture of the health issues the Artemis crew will likely face well beyond lunar regolith contact.38 Loss of osteological density and changes in bone metabolism have been observed after periods of prolonged weightlessness, as well as muscular atrophy and decreases in muscle mass. Similarly, low gravity conditions can produce intervertebral disc injury and hernia due to the elongation of the spine. Neuro-ocular complications are also common, with vision problems often persisting upon return to Earth. Sleep cycles are strongly disturbed in microgravity, particularly in long-duration missions.39 This leads to acute fatigue and ensuing physiological imbalance that weaken an astronaut’s immune system overall, increasing the likelihood of work-related accidents that endanger the crew’s safety and exacerbating the psychological stress of isolation and confinement. Last, but not least, cancer is an indisputable risk from extended exposure to solar radiation without the protection of Earth’s electromagnetic field.40
To date, all of the above have been deemed acceptable risks for astronauts by NASA. However, they have never been observed in the context of commercial crews or in the life-threatening extremes that Artemis astronauts, using privately made spacecraft, will confront. In this regard, it is worth returning to Blue Ghost—the name of the Firefly Aerospace lander. Touching down on the Mare Crisium (Sea of Crises), among its payloads with scientific experiment and technological devices, was an inscribed nickel plate inside a small pyramid-shaped capsule known as the LifeShip. Within this capsule were forty-seven artworks selected by the MoonMars Museum: an effort mirroring the 1969 Moon Museum, a ceramic wafer attached to a leg of the Lunar Module Intrepid, which carried works by US artists such as Robert Rauschenberg, Claus Oldenburg, and Andy Warhol. Yet LifeShip carried a blueprint image of Fallen Astronaut (1971), an artwork created by Belgian artist Paul Van Hoeydonck. This seven-centimeter sculpture was placed on the Moon by Apollo 15 astronaut David Scott, along with a plaque made by NASA bearing the names of the fourteen astronauts and cosmonauts who died during space travel prior to 1971. Fallen Astronaut remains to this day in the Hadley-Apennine region of the Moon: an area of the lunar surface extensively surveyed in its geology by the crew of Apollo 15.
Technological and scientific advancement have served as justifications for space exploration despite the potentially deadly consequences for humans: a responsibility that remains all the more imperative in this new phase of lunar missions led by private enterprise. Forthcoming space technologies will no doubt facilitate the traversal of and survival on challenging terrains, but the commercial extraction of geological resources on the Moon will ultimately be made possible by the labor (if not the exploitation) of those who mine. As on Earth, safety guidelines on the Moon run the risk of being sacrificed to minimize costs and maximize profit. Space exploration need not convert the Moon into the “the earthly mundane” through for-profit priorities.41 Rather, off-Earth can be precisely the site from which to reexamine our steadfast reliance of mineral extractivism on our planet. There is perhaps no better way to channel these reflections than through the experience of those whose vital risks makes this possible. In other words, by valuing the exceptional conditions of astronaut labor beyond financial terms alone, always recognizing their unwavering right to go-slow, demand reasonable working conditions, or cease operations altogether in the face of life-threatening danger and return back home.
Much of the information henceforth is drawn from the NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project. See “Edited Oral History Transcript – William R. Pogue,” interview by Kevin M. Rusnak in Houston, Texas on July 17, 2000; “Edited Oral History Transcript – Gerald P. Carr,” interview by Kevin M. Rusnak in Huntsville, Arkansas, USA on October 25, 2000; and “Edited Oral History Transcript – Edward P. Gibson,” interview by Carol Butler on December 1, 2000. All are available from NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, ➝.
“Astronauts try to make up time,” New York Times, November 19, 1973; and “Skylab crew takes day off for rest,” New York Times, November 25, 1973.
David Hitt, Homesteading Space: The Skylab Story (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008) and John Uri, “The Real Story of the Skylab 4 ‘Strike’ in Space,” NASA, November 16, 2020, ➝.
W. David Compton and Charles D. Benson, Living and Working in Space: A History of Skylab, NASA History Series (Washington, DC: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Lab, 1983), 322, ➝.
Kenneth Chang, “How NASA’s astronauts became Space X’s customers,” New York Times, May 26, 2020; see also Christian Davenport, The Space Barons: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and the Quest to Colonize the Cosmos (New York City: Public Affairs, 2018).
Francisco Doménech, “Trump puts NASA on pause as Musk’s DOGE prepares to slash costs,” El País English, February 21, 2025.
Eleanor Pringle, “The person ruling on Elon Musk’s DOGE conflicts of interest is…Elon Musk,” Fortune, February 6, 2025.
Kenneth Chang, “’Moon Dust on Our Boots’: Texas Company’s Blue Ghost Lands on Lunar Surface,” New York Times, March 1, 2025.
NASA, “NASA Selects Astronauts for First U.S. Commercial Spaceflights,” Press release 15-148, July 9, 2015, ➝.
Elyna Niles-Carnes, “NASA Adjusts Crew-10 Launch Date,” December 17, 2024, ➝; see also Eric Berger, “NASA will swap Dragon spacecraft on the ground to return Butch and Suni sooner,” Ars Technica, February 6, 2025.
Oliver Milman, “Trump asks Musk to bring back two astronauts ‘stranded’ on space station,’ The Guardian, January 29, 2025, Jackie Wattles, “Weeks from homecoming, Boeing Starliner astronauts want to set the record straight,” CNN, February 13, 2025; Miranda Bryant, “Elon Musk in row with Danish astronaut over claim Biden abandoned ISS pair,” The Guardian, February 21, 2025; and Aaron Gregg and Christian Davenport, “Starliner crew says they were unaware of any Musk offer for earlier return,” Washington Post, March 4, 2025.
Kenneth Chang, “NASA says Space Station astronaut is in ‘incredible health,’” New York Times, November 14, 2024.
Swapna Krishna, “Why aren’t Boeing and SpaceX spacesuits compatible?” Ad Astra, August, 19, 2024, ➝.
Resolution adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly 2222 (XXI), “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies”, 1967, ➝.
Eric Lipton, “F.A.A. Temporarily Halts Launches of Musk’s Starship After Explosion,” New York Times, January 17, 2025.
Examples include Jayme S.J. Schwartz, “Lunar Labor Relations,” in Dissent, Revolution, and Liberty Beyond Death, ed. Charles S. Cockell (Berlin: Springer, 2016): 41-58; Erika Nesvold, “Protecting Labor Rights in Space,” in Reclaiming Space: Progressive and Multicultural Visions of Space Exploration, eds. Jayme S.J. Schwartz, Linda Billings, and Erika Nesvold (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023): 241-250; and Erica Nesvold, Off-Earth: Ethical Questions and Quandaries for Living in Outer Space (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2024).
Andrea Hsu, “Accused of violating worker rights, SpaceX and Amazon go after labor board,” National Public Radio, November 18, 2024.
Danielle Kaye and Rebecca Davis O’Brien, “Trump Firings at Labor Board Paralyze the Agency,” New York Times, January 28, 2025.
Kenneth Chang, “NASA Artemis Moon Missions delayed until 2026 and 2027,” New York Times, December 5, 2024.
“The Artemis Accords: Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes,” 2020, ➝; see also Joey Roulette, “Exclusive: Trump administration drafting ‘Artemis Accords’ pact for moon mining – sources,” Reuters, May 6, 2020; and “ ‘Star Trek, not Star Wars:’ NASA releases basic principles for moon exploration pact,” Reuters, May 16, 2020.
The White House, “Executive Order on Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources,” April 6, 2020, ➝.
Kenneth Chang, “What Trump’s Pledge to Plant the U.S. Flag on Mars Really Means,” New York Times, January 21, 2025.
“Musk’s Mission to Mars,” Financial Times, January 31, 2025.
“Space Science is for Everyone: An Open Letter,” February 6, 2025. Available at ➝. See also Kenneth Chang, “NASA Astronaut Recruitment Faces Trump’s Moves Against D.E.I.,” New York Times, February 3, 2025
Andrew Jones, “NASA must ‘consider alternatives’ to put Artemis astronauts on the Moon, experts tell US Congress,” Space.com, February 27, 2025, ➝.
The White House, “National Space Policy of the United States of America,” June 28, 2010, ➝.
U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, Public Law 114-90, November 25, 2015, ➝; see also Christopher Davenport, “How Barack Obama brought capitalism to outer space,” Washington Post, October 11, 2016; and Mike Wall, “President Obama’s space legacy: Mars, private spaceflight, and more,” Space.com, January 20, 2017, ➝.
Christopher Newman, “Artemis Accords: Why many countries are refusing to sign Moon exploration agreement,” The Conversation, October 19, 2020.
Haris Durrani, “Interpreting ‘Space Resources Obtained: Historical and Postcolonial Interventions in the Law of Commercial Space Mining,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 57 (2018): 403–460; and Cait Storr, “ ‘Space Is the Only Way to Go’: The Evolution of the Extractivist Imaginary of International Law,” in Routledge Handbook of International Law and the Humanities, eds. Shane Chalmers and Sundya Pahuja (London: Routledge, 2021): 290-301.
Jonathan Corum, “Now boarding: Space X’s new ride to orbit for NASA astronauts,” New York Times, May 30, 2020.
NASA, “Weather on the Moon,” ➝.
Ceri Nunn et al., “Lunar Seismology: A Data and Instrumentation Review,” Space Science Review 216 (2020): 89.
Ethan Waisberg, Joshua Ong, and Andrew G. Lee, “Coordinated Lunar Time (LTC): Implications of a Lunar-centric Time Zone on Astronaut Health and Space Medicine,” Life Sciences in Space Research 42 (2024): 72-73.
Andrew Petro, “Surviving and Operating Through the Lunar Night,” 2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers: 1-6; see also Leonard David, “Surviving the lunar night can be a challenge for astronauts on the Moon,” Space.com, November 14, 2022.
Gerald B. Sanders, Julie E. Kleinhenz, and Dale Boucher, “Lunar Mining and Processing: Considerations for Responsible Space Mining & Connections to Terrestrial Mining,” ASCEND Conference 2023 (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2023), 4621.
Silvana Miranda et al., “A Dusty Road for Astronauts,” Biomedicines 11, no. 7 (2023): 1921; and Michael Pohlen et al., “Overview of lunar dust toxicity risk,” npj Microgravity 8 (2022): 55.
John T. James and Noreen Kahn-Mayberry, “Risk of Adverse Health Effects from Lunar Dust Exposure,” in Human Health and Performance Risks of Space Exploration Missions: Evidence Reviewed by the NASA Human Research Program, eds. Jancy C. McPhee and John B. Charles (Houston: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 2009), 317-330.
Chayakrit Krittanawong et al., “Human Health during Space Travel: State-of-the-Art Review,” Cells 12, no. 1 (2022): 40; and Thomas J. Goodwin and Melpo Christofidou-Solomidou, “Oxidative Stress and Space Biology: An Organ-Based Approach,” International Journal of Molecular Science 19, no. 4 (2018): 959.
Laura K. Barger et al., “Sleep and cognitive function of crewmembers and mission controllers working 24-h shifts during a simulated 105-day spaceflight mission,” Acta Astronautica 93 (2014): 230-242.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Space Radiation and Astronaut Health: Managing and Communicating Cancer Risks (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2021).
Jodi Dean, Aliens in America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outerspace to Cyberspace (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008), 99.
Off-Earth is a collaboration between e-flux Architecture and the Luxembourg Center for Architecture (LUCA) and supported by the Luxembourg Ministry of Culture following “Down to Earth,” the Luxembourg Pavilion at the 2023 Venice Architecture Biennale, curated by Francelle Cane and Marija Marić.
