What Is Space Archaeology and Why Does It Matter?

Key Takeaways

• Space archaeology studies the material record of human activity in orbit, on other worlds, and at space sites.
• ISS research shows crews repurpose designed spaces, revealing needs that procedures and interviews can miss.
• Its value spans habitat design and lunar heritage protection; it also informs debris policy and mission planning.

Space Archaeology as the Study of Human Material Culture Beyond Earth

On January 14, 2022, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) astronaut Kayla Barron placed bright Kapton tape inside the International Space Station (ISS) to mark sample areas for the Sampling Quadrangle Assemblages Research Experiment, or SQuARE. That act turned an inhabited spacecraft into an archaeological field site. Space archaeology, in this sense, studies the physical traces of human activity connected with spaceflight. Its evidence includes objects and built spaces; discarded equipment and modified interiors; landing sites and tracks; and launch facilities shaped by use over time.

The term can cause confusion because it has another established meaning. NASA Earth Observatory has used “space archaeology” for archaeological work on Earth that relies on satellite and airborne remote sensing. Such research can reveal buried roads, settlement patterns, or traces of older environments that are difficult to recognize from ground level. That practice is archaeology conducted with tools from space. The newer field centered on human spaceflight is archaeology of space activity itself. Both uses are legitimate, but they ask different questions.

Gorman’s space-archaeology scholarship describes the latter field as the study of material remains from human space-related activity on Earth and beyond it. The material record can include a lunar landing site or a disused satellite. It can also include a space station module, a tracking station, or a terrestrial launch complex. The field overlaps with historical archaeology and contemporary archaeology. It also meets heritage management and anthropology. Human factors research and space policy add two more areas of overlap.

That scope explains why the field extends beyond famous artifacts. Archaeology does not study an object only because it is old, rare, or visually dramatic. It studies relationships between objects and people, between locations and routines, and across time. A roll of adhesive tape attached to a space station wall can carry evidence about storage practices. A cluster of toiletry bags can reveal whether designers provided adequate personal organization space. Footprints can show movement at a lunar landing site. An abandoned robotic vehicle on Mars can become part of a growing material record of human technical activity on another planet.

The International Space Station Archaeological Project (ISSAP) provides a well-documented application of this approach to an inhabited spacecraft. Led by Justin Walsh of Chapman University and Alice Gorman of Flinders University, the project treats the ISS as a site where people have created a distinct material culture. That culture develops under microgravity and confinement, with tight schedules and international management limiting how freely crews can alter the built environment. New Space Economy has covered the project in an New Space Economy overview that connects the research to space habitation and mission planning.

Archaeology Without a Trowel on the International Space Station

Traditional excavation is impossible on an operational spacecraft. Archaeologists cannot remove wall panels or open trenches. They also cannot disturb equipment or take artifacts away for laboratory analysis. The International Space Station also remains a workplace governed by safety procedures and mission schedules. Researchers had to adapt archaeological methods to a site that they could not visit and that could not be physically disturbed.

The project began by treating the enormous photographic archive of the station as archaeological evidence. Crew photographs can record where objects appear and how they move. They can also show which surfaces collect personal items, where decorations accumulate, and how spaces change across expeditions. Image sequences allow researchers to study association, one of archaeology’s basic tools. Researchers can ask which objects repeatedly appear together and where they appear, then connect those patterns with specific activities.

The SQuARE experiment added controlled sampling. Its design borrowed from the terrestrial practice of using test squares to characterize a larger site. Crew members marked six sample locations and photographed them every day over a 60-day period from January through March 2022. The 2024 peer-reviewed study explains that the experiment used equipment already aboard the station. A camera with a wide-angle optical attachment and adhesive tape formed part of the kit. A ruler and color calibration card completed it. For 30 days, photographs were taken at roughly the same time. A later 30-day period used random times to reduce time-of-day bias.

This approach produced a record of material movement rather than a static snapshot. Archaeologists could annotate objects and classify their functions. They could then compare changes from day to day and examine whether the planned purpose of a location matched its actual use. The analysis of two sample areas documented 5,438 item instances. That volume made statistical comparison possible without excavating, removing, or physically handling anything.

Remote archaeology also addresses a broader problem in human spaceflight research. Interviews and crew reports are valuable, yet people do not always remember routine behavior in detail. They may also describe formal procedures rather than every workaround used during a long mission. Material evidence records some of those workarounds indirectly. A repeatedly occupied location, an improvised storage cluster, or a wall covered with personal objects can preserve behavioral information even when no one wrote it down.

The method has limits. A photograph captures only what falls inside the frame. Some activities happen between images. Small objects may be hidden. Researchers rely on metadata and mission records to reduce ambiguity. Crew knowledge and consistent image processing add further checks. Archaeological interpretation does not replace interviews or psychology. Nor does it replace engineering analysis or operational data. It adds an independent evidence stream based on what people do with physical objects and spaces.

What the SQuARE Experiment Revealed About Crew Behavior

The strongest result from the initial SQuARE publication is the gap between designed function and lived function. In one sample area designated for equipment maintenance, storage dominated the observed use. Velcro and other attachment surfaces made the area convenient for holding items, even when those objects had little connection to maintenance work. The station’s crew adapted an available physical feature to meet a practical need.

Another sample area sat near exercise equipment and the waste and hygiene compartment but had no formal assigned purpose. The archaeological record showed frequent personal hygiene use. Toiletries, resealable bags, and related items appeared there repeatedly. The location became useful because of where it was, what nearby activities demanded, and what attachment options were available.

These findings sound modest compared with rocket performance or biomedical research, yet they address a persistent engineering problem: what occurs after a designed habitat meets real human behavior. A spacecraft plan can assign every object and surface a purpose through procedures. People still reorganize their surroundings. Storage moves toward convenient attachment points. Personal items gather near recurring routines. Shared spaces acquire informal functions. Crew-created arrangements can persist because they work.

The project’s ISS archaeological research describes this divergence between planned and actual use as a source of information for future habitat design. Another New Space Economy feature on 25-year ISS archaeology feature discusses decoration and memorabilia as evidence of autonomy inside an intensely managed environment. It also examines food, storage, and improvised arrangements.

Archaeology is well suited to such questions because it treats clutter as data rather than noise. Engineers may see an item in an unexpected location as poor housekeeping, a temporary exception, or a procedural deviation. An archaeologist asks whether the pattern repeats and what function it serves. Repetition can expose a design need that was not recognized when the spacecraft was built.

The ISS also offers evidence about identity and institutional organization. Crew members decorate modules and keep personal items. They also recognize deceased colleagues and use surfaces in ways that reflect national, professional, and personal connections. Walsh has argued in public commentary that much of the station remains organized along national lines because partner agencies control modules and activities. Material arrangements can make such institutional divisions visible.

None of this means archaeology can determine motive from objects alone. A bag attached near exercise equipment does not prove why a particular astronaut placed it there. The strength comes from patterns across time and repeated associations. Mission records and comparison with planned functions strengthen the interpretation. When those sources point in the same direction, the physical record can reveal features of daily life that formal architecture and procedure manuals do not capture.

Lunar, Orbital, Martian, and Terrestrial Space Sites

Space archaeology did not begin with SQuARE. Beth O’Leary and colleagues at New Mexico State University developed the Lunar Legacy Project to document Tranquility Base, the Apollo 11 landing site. The project identified more than 100 objects left on the lunar surface and worked to map their positions as an archaeological assemblage. The Lunar Legacy Project presents the site as a record composed of artifacts, features, and spatial relationships rather than a single celebrated object.

Tranquility Base demonstrates why context matters. The descent stage and scientific equipment form part of one connected site. Discarded packaging, tools, and footprints add further context. Moving or collecting a single object can destroy information about where it sat in relation to other material. Rocket exhaust from a later landing could erase tracks or disturb lightweight artifacts without anyone intending to damage heritage. Archaeological value depends partly on keeping relationships legible.

The Moon has become a central heritage concern because new government and commercial missions increase the chance of physical disturbance. In 2025, the World Monuments Fund placed the Moon on its 2025 World Monuments Watch, following a nomination associated with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) scientific committee for aerospace heritage. The aerospace heritage committee describes aerospace heritage as extending from terrestrial facilities to orbit, the Moon, and other destinations.

Mars is also acquiring an archaeological record. A 2024 paper in Nature Astronomy paper argued that spacecraft and landing hardware should be recognized as material evidence of human activity on Mars. Impact sites and related traces belong to the same record. The authors mapped 14 mission sites and urged planetary scientists to consider archaeological concerns alongside planetary protection. The concern is information loss. Decisions about disposal and recovery can erase historical evidence, as can relocation or poorly planned protection.

Earth orbit presents an even harder case. Defunct satellites and fragments are commonly discussed as debris because they can threaten active spacecraft. Gorman’s orbital-heritage research argues that debris-management frameworks can overlook the cultural significance carried by some retired orbital objects. Archaeologists and heritage researchers point out that some retired objects may carry historical or scientific significance, along with social or technical meaning. That creates a policy problem rather than a simple preservation command. Collision risk can require removal. Heritage value can favor documentation or retention. A rational process needs a way to distinguish routine hazardous debris from objects whose record merits special consideration.

Terrestrial facilities complete the picture. NASA manages historic launch structures and laboratories at its centers. It also manages control rooms, tracking installations, and archaeological sites. Its NASA historic properties inventory states that the agency has identified about 400 archaeological sites at its facilities, with roughly 240 considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. These sites show that space archaeology is not geographically confined to outer space. Human expansion beyond Earth has always depended on physical places on Earth.

The Practical Value for Spacecraft and Habitat Design

Long-duration missions depend on engineering and medicine. They also depend on logistics and psychology; food systems and maintenance; and communications and social organization. Space archaeology adds evidence about how those systems are experienced through material surroundings. Its value is strongest when designers treat observed behavior as feedback rather than as a curiosity.

Storage provides a clear case. Every kilogram and cubic meter matters in a spacecraft, so designers plan storage carefully. Yet storage is also a behavioral system. Crew members need frequently used items near the activities they support. Microgravity makes attachment surfaces important because unattended objects can float away. If crews repeatedly convert work areas into storage because those areas contain convenient Velcro, the archaeological record is identifying a mismatch between planned storage and lived demand.

Personal hygiene is another example. A station may satisfy the technical requirement for sanitation without providing an intuitive place to stage toiletries and bags. Towels or other personal items may still lack a convenient location. When an undesignated area repeatedly acquires that function, it can suggest that future habitats should include better-integrated personal organization near hygiene facilities.

The same reasoning applies to recreation and privacy. It also applies to food and memorials. Decoration and work boundaries matter too, as does social gathering. A habitat designed only around task efficiency can miss the ways people establish belonging and control. Small acts of personalization can matter during long confinement because crew members live inside the machine they operate. Archaeological evidence helps document these acts without depending entirely on retrospective testimony.

Future commercial stations may gain from such research because operators will have different customers and staffing patterns. Interior designs and business models will differ as well. A station serving professional astronauts and private researchers may generate competing uses for the same spaces. National astronauts and short-duration visitors can add further demands. Designers can build in flexible attachment systems and adaptable storage if evidence shows repeated demand. Reconfigurable zones and clearer personal areas can address other recurring needs.

The method also has value for missions beyond low Earth orbit. A lunar habitat or Mars transit vehicle will offer fewer opportunities for resupply and less tolerance for poorly allocated space. Crew workarounds that are harmless on the ISS could become harder to sustain farther from Earth. Archaeology cannot predict every behavior, but it can provide a record of how people already adapt in one of the closest available analogs to a permanent off-Earth settlement.

This is why the field belongs beside human factors research rather than outside engineering. It studies outcomes after design decisions meet human practice. The difference is methodological: archaeology begins with material traces and spatial relationships. That perspective can expose needs that surveys, simulations, and procedure reviews may not reveal on their own.

Heritage Protection as Space Activity Expands

Preserving space heritage is no longer an abstract museum question. More lunar missions mean more vehicles and landing plumes near sites created during earlier exploration. Surface traffic and construction add other risks, as do scientific instruments or possible tourism. Heritage management now sits beside operational planning.

The United States adopted the One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act in 2020. The 2020 law directs NASA to incorporate recommendations intended to protect Apollo landing site artifacts from harmful interference into relevant agreements and activities. The NASA’s 2011 preservation recommendations provide technical guidance for planning visits near U.S. lunar heritage sites. NASA partnership clauses also incorporate protection language for lunar activities.

The Artemis Accords adds an international policy layer. As of August 31, 2026, 71 nations had signed the Artemis Accords. The accords state that signatories intend to preserve outer space heritage, including historically significant sites and artifacts. They do not create a global heritage treaty, but they place preservation within a broader set of civil-space principles. Those principles also address registration and scientific data. Deconfliction and resource activity sit beside debris mitigation.

Archaeology supplies the evidence needed to decide what preservation means in practice. Before a site can be protected, researchers need to identify its physical extent and components. They must then assess relationships and sources of significance. At Tranquility Base, that can include hardware and tracks. Footprints and discarded equipment also matter because of their spatial relationship to the crew’s movements. A preservation rule focused only on a lander could protect the most visible object and still destroy much of the site.

International heritage specialists have begun building institutions around this issue. The ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Aerospace Heritage was created in 2023 and now works on tangible and intangible aerospace heritage on Earth, in orbit, and beyond. Its activity shows that heritage governance is moving from individual scholars toward professional organizations with established conservation expertise.

Preservation will still require restraint. An operational site cannot always be frozen in place. A historic launch pad may need modification for new vehicles. An aging orbital object can become a safety hazard. A lunar route may pass near an older landing site because terrain constrains access. Archaeology contributes documentation and significance assessment, with mitigation options built from that evidence. Policy makers and operators must weigh those options against safety and science, together with access and mission needs.

Tensions Between Preservation, Safety, and Continued Use

Space heritage has an unusual physical setting. On Earth, national laws can protect buildings and excavations inside recognized jurisdictions. Historic districts can receive protection as well. Beyond Earth, the legal framework begins with international space law and national authority over spacecraft and personnel. Ownership rules for space objects sit beside mission agreements and voluntary norms. Heritage protection must fit within that structure.

The Moon illustrates the tension. The absence of wind and flowing water can leave tracks and artifacts visually preserved for decades. Rocket plumes and surface vehicles can disturb them quickly, as can construction or close visitation. Protective zones may reduce damage, but poorly designed restrictions could be criticized as attempts to control access to areas that no nation may appropriate as sovereign territory. NASA’s own policy analysis has recognized the need for careful site identification and proportionate protection.

Earth orbit presents a different conflict. Debris mitigation and active debris removal seek to reduce collision risk. Cultural heritage management asks whether some retired objects deserve documentation or preservation because of their history. Treating every old satellite as untouchable would be unsafe. Treating every inactive object as historically meaningless could erase irreplaceable evidence. The practical answer is likely to involve significance criteria and risk assessment. Detailed recording and case-by-case decisions would support that process.

The International Space Station itself will eventually force similar questions. Its archaeological value comes partly from being an intact, heavily documented inhabited site. Yet an operational station cannot become a museum simply because researchers find it historically significant. Safety and cost govern its fate. International agreements, disposal plans, and orbital risk also matter. Archaeologists can preserve part of its record through images and inventories. Spatial models and crew testimony add other forms of evidence. Digital archives, selected returned artifacts, and analytical datasets can survive even if the physical structure does not remain in orbit.

There is also an ethical question about whose heritage is being preserved. Space history is often told through state programs and famous astronauts. Flagship missions and engineering achievements dominate many public narratives. Material culture can broaden that record. It can preserve traces of technicians and scientists. Contractors and international partners also leave evidence, as do short-duration visitors and the everyday routines that keep a station operating. Terrestrial launch centers also occupy places with deeper Indigenous and local histories. Military and labor histories can coexist with space programs, as can environmental histories.

Professional heritage practice can help prevent a narrow heroic narrative from becoming the only record. Archaeology asks who used a place and what they changed. It also examines what they left and how those traces relate to institutions and communities. Applied carefully, that approach can make space heritage more representative without turning every object into a monument.

Space Archaeology as an Input to Long-Duration Exploration

Space archaeology remains a small field, but its subject is growing every year. Human-made objects now occupy Earth orbit and the Moon. Others sit on Mars or asteroids, or travel on trajectories through the Solar System. Crewed stations have accumulated decades of habitation. Launch sites and control facilities on Earth are aging into formal heritage categories. New lunar missions will create new sites that future researchers may study.

The field’s research value will increase if data collection becomes routine rather than occasional. Habitat operators can preserve time-stamped interior photography and configuration histories in formats suitable for later analysis. Object inventories, repair records, and spatial models can extend that record. Such records do not need to interfere with operations. The SQuARE experiment demonstrated that controlled archaeological observation can be done with simple tools and limited crew time.

Commercial operators could also use archaeological methods during design evaluation. A company building a station can compare planned room functions with actual use after occupancy, identify repeated workarounds, and feed the results into later modules. Archaeology can function here as post-occupancy analysis for extreme environments, grounded in material evidence rather than architectural intention alone.

For lunar and Martian activity, early documentation can prevent later uncertainty. Mission teams can record artifact locations and tracks. Temporary installations, discarded material, and alterations to the surface can be documented at the same time. Those data can support science and engineering reconstruction long after the original mission ends. Accident analysis and heritage assessment can benefit as well. Documentation is often cheaper and easier when a site is created than decades later.

Space archaeology also offers a reminder about technological progress. Hardware does not tell its own story. A station module has design drawings and specifications, but habitation creates another layer of evidence beyond procedures. Users improvise. Objects migrate. Informal routines develop. Spaces acquire meanings that designers never assigned. Those changes are part of the history of human spaceflight and part of the evidence needed to build better places to live away from Earth.

The New Space Economy ISS feature frames ISS archaeology as a way to study adaptation, technological change, and cultural practice through the station’s material record. That framing points toward the field’s most practical contribution. As human presence beyond Earth grows, archaeology can document the difference between how space systems were supposed to be used and how people actually lived with them.

Summary

Space archaeology studies the material evidence created by human activity connected with spaceflight. Depending on context, the term can also describe the use of satellite remote sensing for archaeology on Earth. The spaceflight-focused field instead examines sites and artifacts on Earth or in orbit, as well as material on the Moon or other planetary bodies.

The International Space Station Archaeological Project has shown that the approach can produce measurable results. SQuARE adapted archaeological sampling to an active spacecraft, documenting six locations through repeated photography. Analysis of two areas found substantial differences between assigned function and actual use, including storage in a maintenance area and personal hygiene activity in an otherwise undesignated space.

Other projects extend the field to Tranquility Base and lunar heritage management. Orbital objects and terrestrial space facilities broaden the scope, as does the growing archaeological record on Mars. These cases connect archaeology with engineering and human factors. They also link cultural heritage with debris management, international policy, and mission planning.

Its practical value comes from material evidence. Procedures describe intended behavior. Interviews describe remembered experience. Archaeology records traces of what people did with places and objects. For long-duration exploration, that evidence can help designers understand storage and privacy. It can also reveal personalization, workarounds, and informal uses that emerge inside confined habitats.

As activity increases beyond Earth, decisions about preservation will become harder. Some objects will need removal for safety. Some sites will require protection from traffic or rocket plumes. Some operational facilities will need modification rather than preservation in a fixed state. Space archaeology provides methods for identifying significance, recording context, and making those decisions with a stronger factual record.