This article was originally published at The Conversation. The publication contributed the article to Space.com’s Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.
In the 1960s, Frank Sinatra’s song Fly Me to the Moon became closely associated with the Apollo missions. The optimistic track was recorded in 1964, when US success against the Soviet Union in the Moon race was not assured.
In the 21st century, the exploration of the moon will take a different form. Several countries want to go there and stay. The US, China and international partners on both sides have plans to establish permanent bases on the lunar surface – raising the possibility of conflict.
The bases will be located at the south pole of the moon, which has valuable resources such as abundant water in the form of ice. This ice, locked up in permanently shadowed craters, could be turned into water for use by lunar bases and into rocket fuel to support ongoing exploration and the people living there. The moon may also have valuable minerals, such as rare earth metals, that countries may want to extract.
But such resources will be limited, as are suitable sites for landing and building lunar bases. The potential for conflict between nations in space is not beyond the realms of possibility.
However, there are measures that can be taken to ensure that the future is a cooperative one. So a song as optimistic as Fly Me To The Moon could serve as the soundtrack to this new age in exploration, just as it did in the 1960s and 70s.
International treaties could be the solution, together with a willingness of countries to operate responsibly. The outer space treaty of 1967 says that space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, or by means of use or occupation. At the same time, article I of the treaty considers space as a global common, and states that the exploration and use of space is for all nations, including its resources.
A vital question is whether the moon’s water ice be used without some level of appropriation.
Moon agreement
The Artemis accords, a set of guidelines initiated by the US, is a bottom-up attempt to establish a common behaviour. Section 10 of the Artemis accords says that the “extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty”.
It also proposes the use of temporary “safety zones” around operations to extract resources. Signatories to the Artemis accords must provide notification of their activities to other nations and commit to coordinating to avoid harmful interference.
However, these safety zones are highly controversial because they could be seen as a breach of the outer space treaty’s non-appropriation principles, to say the least. To some, these zones could create de facto ownership rights over space resources.
As of now, 56 countries have signed the Artemis accords. Thailand and Senegal have signed the US-led accords and are also involved in China’s lunar base project. As such, these nations provide a bridge between the two programs and hope for collaboration.
The Moon agreement, adopted in 1979 by the UN, also governs how Earth’s natural satellite should be used. There are a lot of interesting features in this treaty, including a call for transparency, with requirements for states to share information about their lunar activities, and an international effort to manage lunar resources.
The aim is to build confidence between signatories to the agreement. Like the outer space treaty, it strictly prohibits the national appropriation of space resources.
A major impediment is that neither China, nor the US nor the Russian Federation have signed up. However, in my view, the moon agreement provides the best framework for the future – without further treaties or accords. Nations just need to use it. And if one or two articles need a change, they should be changed.
New era
The world is standing on the verge of a new age in lunar exploration. Whether the US or China arrive there first, there is a new will to establish a permanent presence on Earth’s natural satellite. China, along with about ten countries, is planning a base called the ILRS (International Lunar Research Station). Nasa, meanwhile, is developing a lunar station called Artemis Base Camp.
These will take some time to build, but nations are already off the starting blocks. NASA’ss Artemis II mission, which will carry four astronauts on a flyby of the moon, is set to launch in February 2026. On September 24 this year, the US space agency also announced a new class of astronauts who are likely to fly on future missions to the lunar surface.
These developments show that there is the potential for a more equitable future in space than the one we have experienced in the past. I couldn’t help notice, for example, that of the 10 newly selected astronauts, 60% are women, which is a first.
China recently completed a test of its crewed lunar lander, Lanyue. Its ILRS lunar base project has signed up nations without a long track record in human space exploration.
So how can countries ensure that they capitalize on the promise of a cooperative future in space and avoid transferring existing rivalries – and inequities – beyond Earth’s boundaries?
Replicating the wild west on the moon, where the first person to arrive claims the the land, is not an option in the 21st century. Humans will all be “terrestrials” when they land on the moon, regardless of national flags.
Space can be a platform for diplomacy as well as conflict. It can also be a tool for socio-economic development. These are powerful incentives for humankind to act as partners on the final frontier.
Expanding humanity’s footprint beyond Earth is the biggest challenge of this century and beyond. So a global effort to explore outer space collaboratively and peacefully is not only possible, but mandatory.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.