The Economics of Extreme Environments in a Spacefaring World
By George Pullen, Chief Economist, MilkyWayEconomy (MWE)
As humanity moves from episodic spaceflight toward permanent off-world presence, the defining constraint is no longer technological ambition but economic survivability. Extreme environments (whether the Arctic, Antarctica, deep ocean platforms, orbit, or the lunar surface) operate under a common and unforgiving logic. Costs compound faster than revenues, logistics dominate balance sheets, and failure is rarely gradual. This executive summary advances a central thesis of the Arctic–Lunar Continuum: the economics of extreme environments determine who becomes a spacefaring civilization and who merely launches hardware.
In extreme environments, logistics is destiny. Every kilogram moved, every watt generated, and every human-hour sustained carries nonlinear cost curves. The Arctic demonstrates this reality in real time. Infrastructure must be overbuilt, redundancy is mandatory, and supply chains are fragile by design. These are not inefficiencies; they are the baseline conditions of operation. Lunar and cislunar economies will inherit these same constraints, magnified by distance, communication latency, and energy scarcity.
Traditional terrestrial economic models fail at the frontier. Labor markets break down when rotation costs exceed productivity gains. Capital intensity spikes as autonomy replaces manpower. Insurance, maintenance, and replacement cycles become core economic activities rather than overhead. In such environments, profit does not come from scale first...it comes from endurance. The winners are not those who move fastest but those who remain solvent longest.
The Arctic offers a critical warning to space strategists: resource abundance does not guarantee economic viability. Mineral deposits, strategic locations, or geopolitical importance do not override operating costs, environmental volatility, or substitution risk. Lunar extraction will face identical pressures. Without demand certainty, pricing power, and reliable offtake agreements, frontier resources remain stranded assets; technically extractable but economically inert.
Autonomy emerges as the decisive economic lever. In extreme environments, human presence is a liability before it becomes an asset. Systems that minimize crew dependency, automate maintenance, and operate in darkness, cold, and isolation achieve exponential cost advantages over human-centered architectures. The Arctic’s shift toward remote operations foreshadows the Moon’s future: fewer people, more machines, and governance structures designed around systems, not settlements.
Finally, the Arctic–Lunar Continuum reframes space not as a destination but as a stress test for civilization-scale economics. Nations that cannot price risk accurately, finance redundancy, and govern long-horizon projects in hostile environments will fail beyond Earth’s cradle. Spacefaring status will not be declared by flags or launch cadence but by balance sheets that survive decades of extreme conditions.
In this light, the Moon is not the next frontier. The Moon is the next audit.
------------------------
GEORGE PULLEN’S OFFICIAL DISCLAIMER
This essay on the "Polar–Lunar Continuum" does not relate to my official position with the US Government. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 209 the teaching, speaking and writing around this collection of essays are not undertaken as part of my official duties. I was not invited by a related party to write on these topics, but rather took the initiative to write on the Polar-Lunar Continum given my personal interest, research and expertise in the topic and as a continuation of my research on Blockchain and The Space Economy. Members of the public should know clearly that this is not a product of any agency's official speech or official position but undertaken as the exercise of my free speech as a citizen of the United States.
Further, the content does not relate to my official duties because it is not a topic of my presently assigned duties as a Senior Economist for the CFTC or any of my duties within the past year. The information conveyed also does not draw upon nonpublic CFTC information or substantially on ideas or official data that are nonpublic information as defined in § 2635.