Mkhitar Hayrapetyan, Minister of High-Tech Industry of the Republic of Armenia, signs the Artemis Accords June 12 as (from left) Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Jennifer Littlejohn, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, and Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to the United States Lilit Makunts look on. (credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky)
Artemis Accords lift off
by Jeff Foust Monday, June 17, 2024
At the end of 2022, more than two years after the rollout of the Artemis Accords, 23 nations had signed the document outlining best practices for sustainable space exploration. Since eight of the countries had signed the Accords at once at an unveiling event in October 2020, it meant that 15 nations had joined since then.
The pace has picked up considerably since then. Ten countries signed the Artemis Accords in 2023, ranging from major spacefaring countries like Germany and India to Angola, which has yet to sign the Outer Space Treaty, the foundational document of international space law. So far this year another ten have signed, most recently Armenia last week.
“In today’s rapidly expanding space activities, it is very important to set rules for long-term safety of outer space,” said Drucker.
That has resulted in a regular series of signing ceremonies, some in the countries that were signing the Accords and others at NASA’s headquarters. The ones in Washington followed a similar script: remarks by NASA administrator Bill Nelson and, typically, a State Department official, along with the minister and ambassador of the country signing the Accords. After the remarks, they sign copies of Accords, pose for pictures, and then head on out.
The pace of signings resulted in a doubleheader of sorts on May 30: NASA headquarters hosted one ceremony that morning for Peru and another, a few hours later, for Slovakia. The two events followed similar scripts, although after the second event some of the Slovak officials lingered in the room, taking pictures of themselves in front of NASA backdrops or at the podium with NASA’s logo.
But why are more countries signing up for the Accords after nearly four years? Some countries have seen the Artemis Accords as a way to get involved in the overall Artemis lunar exploration effort, even though signing the document doesn’t guarantee any roles in Artemis.
“This opportunity will allow to Peru to participate in activities related to the exploration and sustainable use of space resources as well as to promote scientific and aerospace development in our country,” said Peru’s foreign minister, Javier González-Olaechea, at his country’s signing ceremony.
Others see signing the Accords as a signal that they intend to be a responsible actor in space, backing practices like transparency, registration of space objects, and mitigating creation of orbital debris.
“In today’s rapidly expanding space activities, it is very important to set rules for long-term safety of outer space,” said Tomáš Drucker, Slovakia’s minister of education, research, development and youth. “These rules should ensure that space activities are safe, clean and sustainable, benefiting all nations. By fostering commercial and public private partnerships and hastening international cooperation, we can achieve these goals together.”
US officials say they are seeing growing momentum for the Accords. “As the number keeps growing, there’s more and more interest,” said Valda Vikmanis-Keller, director of the Office of Space Affairs at the State Department, at the Meridian Space Diplomacy Forum April 30. “Countries are looking around and realizing that their neighbors, other international partners, have signed, and I think there’s a growing curiosity.” She added that while the US had earlier been proactive in discussing the Accords with countries, now countries are approaching the US about signing.
The level of engagement among countries to get them to sign the Accords has varied widely. Iceland, for example, didn’t even bother with a signing ceremony, instead providing a signed copy of the Accords, apparently unsolicited, to the State Department last October. “For others, it’s a very sustained discussion,” Karen Feldstein, NASA associate administrator for international and interagency relations, said at the Meridian forum.
“A race to define, sign up to, implement, live by principles for safe and responsible and sustainable exploration is, for me, a race worth having,” said Feldstein.
On one level, the Artemis Accords carry limited weight. It is a non-binding document, unlike a treaty, with effectively no penalties for not adhering to its principles. But US officials see that as a strength. “Having the Accords being non-binding lowers the barrier to entry,” Feldstein said, useful since the signatories have a wide range of expertise and experience in spaceflight.
Signing the Accords, they argue, shows a commitment to responsible space activities that doesn’t end with the signing ceremony. “The Accords are the beginning of a discussion,” said Vikmanis-Keller. “They bring together people in these discussions. They are free and frank and open in a unique way that perhaps other fora don’t allow.”
That includes heads-of-agencies meetings of Artemis Accords signatories held during the last two International Astronautical Congresses (IAC) in Paris in 2022 and Baku, Azerbaijan, in 2023; another is planned for the next IAC in Milan in October. There have also been more in-depth workshops to discuss topics related to the Accords in more detail.
The latest workshop, held at the Canadian Space Agency headquarters in suburban Montréal last month, included representatives of 24 signatories. In a statement after the meeting, NASA said participants discussed topics of non-interference, transparency and exchanges of scientific data, as well as conducted “a tabletop exercise centered on further defining and implementing key tenets.”
Feldstein said those efforts have already had results. Earlier discussions led to agreement among countries on a basic set of information about lunar missions that countries would share to ensure those missions did not interfere with those from other countries. NASA used that earlier this year to provide information on two lunar lander missions by Astrobotic and Intuitive Machines that carried NASA payloads.
The efforts around the Artemis Accords come as China is offering its own version, through the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) program. Countries that agree to participate in ILRS—11 as of last month, when Serbia joined—also agree to follow a set of principles intended to be analogous to the Artemis Accords.
It is difficult to compare the ILRS principles with the Accords since China has not released a public version of those principles. However, speaking at the Meridian forum, NASA deputy administrator Pam Melroy said it was her understanding that the two documents were similar.
“The ILRS has many similar characteristics to the Artemis Accords,” she said. “Probably the most notable differences, from our perspective, is that we have a commitment to open science and the sharing of scientific data, and transparency.”
There is nothing, officials said at the forum, that prevents a country from both signing the Artemis Accords and joining the ILRS.
US officials downplayed any competition between the Accords and the ILRS principles. “China, feeling the need to articulate its own version of those kinds of principles after the Artemis Accords were completed, is I think a tremendously good thing,” Feldstein said. “A race to define, sign up to, implement, live by principles for safe and responsible and sustainable exploration is, for me, a race worth having.”
There is nothing, both Feldstein and Vikmanis-Keller said at the forum, that prevents a country from both signing the Artemis Accords and joining the ILRS. To date, no countries have done both, although there is speculation that a couple ILRS signatories, South Africa and Thailand, are at least considering signing the Accords.
Officials said they expect more countries to sign the Accords in the months to come. Asked to estimate how many countries would be signatories by the end of the year, Feldstein declined to give a number but Vikmanis-Keller offered a personal, unofficial prediction: 57. The pipeline of countries in discussions about signing the Accords is not public, although the State Department noted in May, after a meeting of the U.S.-Portugal Standing Bilateral Commission, that talks were underway about Portugal signing the Accords.
That growth is a sign of optimism about the future of space exploration, advocates of the Accords argue. “The increasingly rapid growth the Artemis Accords demonstrates a global belief in a better future for humanity in space,” said Mike Gold, a former NASA official who led development of the Accords at the agency in 2020 and is now chief growth officer of Redwire. “During a time when we see so much conflict and pain in the world, Artemis provides a light that can show us a path toward a future full of wonder.”
Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.
The same commercial capabilities enabling new science at the Moon, like the LuSEE-Night radio astronomy experiment, could also jeopardize that research. (credit: NASA/Firefly Aerospace)
The rush to return humans to the Moon and build lunar bases could threaten opportunities for astronomy
The Moon is uniquely suitable for researchers to build telescopes they can’t put on Earth because it doesn’t have as much satellite interference as Earth or a magnetic field blocking out radio waves. But only recently have astronomers like me started thinking about potential conflicts between the desire to expand knowledge of the universe on one side and geopolitical rivalries and commercial gain on the other, and how to balance those interests.
As an astronomer and the co-chair of the International Astronomical Union’s working group Astronomy from the Moon, I’m on the hook to investigate this question.
Only recently have astronomers like me started thinking about potential conflicts between the desire to expand knowledge of the universe on one side and geopolitical rivalries and commercial gain on the other.
Both bases are planned for the same small areas near the south pole because of the near-constant solar power available in this region and the rich source of water that scientists believe could be found in the Moon’s darkest regions nearby.
Unlike the Earth, the Moon is not tilted relative to its path around the Sun. As a result, the Sun circles the horizon near the poles, almost never setting on some crater rims. There, the never-setting Sun casts long shadows over nearby craters, hiding their floors from direct sunlight for the past four billion years, 90% of the age of the solar system.
These craters are basically pits of eternal darkness. And it’s not just dark down there, it’s also cold: below –250 degrees Celsius. It’s so cold that scientists predict that water in the form of ice at the bottom of these craters, likely brought by ancient asteroids colliding with the Moon’s surface, will not melt or evaporate away for a very long time.
Surveys from lunar orbit suggest that these craters, called permanently shadowed regions, could hold half a billion tons of water.
The constant sunlight for solar power and proximity to frozen water makes the Moon’s poles attractive for human bases. The bases will also need water for drinking and washing, and to grow crops to feed hungry astronauts. It is hopelessly expensive to bring long-term water supplies from Earth, so a local watering hole is a big deal.
Telescopes on the Moon
For decades, astronomers had ignored the Moon as a potential site for telescopes because it was simply infeasible to build them there. But human bases open up new opportunities.
The radio-sheltered far side of the Moon, the part we never see from Earth, makes recording very low frequency radio waves accessible. These signals are likely to contain signatures of the universe’s “Dark Ages,” a time before any stars or galaxies formed.
Astronomers could also put gravitational wave detectors at the poles, since these detectors are extraordinarily sensitive, and the Moon’s polar regions don’t have earthquakes to disturb them as they do on Earth.
But activities that will help sustain a human presence on the Moon, such as mining for water, will create vibrations that could ruin a gravitational wave telescope.
A lunar gravitational wave detector could let scientists collect data from pairs of black holes orbiting each other very closely right before they merge. Predicting where and when they will merge tells astronomers where and when to look for a flash of light that they would otherwise miss. With those extra clues, scientists could learn how these black holes are born and how they evolve.
But the rush to build bases on the Moon could interfere with the very conditions that make the Moon so attractive for research in the first place. Although the Moon’s surface area is greater than Africa’s, human explorers and astronomers want to visit the same few kilometer-sized locations.
But activities that will help sustain a human presence on the Moon, such as mining for water, will create vibrations that could ruin a gravitational wave telescope.
But one of the few places rich in helium-3 on the Moon is found in one of the most likely places to put a far-side, Dark Ages radio telescope.
Finally, there are at least two communications and GPS satellite constellations planned to orbit the Moon a few years from now. Unintentional radio emissions from these satellites could render a Dark Ages telescope useless.
The time is now
But compromise isn’t out of the question. There might be a few alternative spots to place each telescope.
In 2024, the International Astronomical Union put together the working group Astronomy from the Moon to start defining which sites astronomers want to preserve for their work. This entails ranking the sites by their importance for each type of telescope and beginning to talk with a key United Nations committee. These steps may help astronomers, astronauts from multiple countries and private interests share the Moon.
Martin Elvis is an astrophysicist at the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard and Smithsonian. He has published nearly 500 papers on supermassive black holes that have been cited over 38,000 times. He publishes widely on asteroid and lunar resources and the space economy.
The DC/DOX documentary film festival, held over the weekend in Washington, included two films on space topics. The subjects and filmmaking approaches are very different, but the two perhaps have more similarities than one might think.
The film manages a dramatic pacing of events through the mission, even though the viewer knows the ultimate outcome.
On Saturday afternoon, the National Archives hosted the US premiere of Apollo 13: Survival, a documentary about the Apollo 13 mission. The movie relies on archival footage—from NASA, television networks, and even the family of astronaut Jim Lovell—to retell the story of the one of the most famous missions in the history of spaceflight. Its approach draws parallels to 2019’s Apollo 11, which also relied on archival footage and eschewed the use of narration or interviews (see “Review: Apollo 11”, The Space Review, March 4, 2019).
Both documentaries faced a similar challenge of retelling the story of a mission most people were already familiar with The makers of Apollo 13: Survival faced an additional challenge: many people were familiar with Apollo 13 because they had seen the movie of the same name, directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks. Could reality match up to a dramatic retelling of reality?
Fortunately, the answer was yes. The film manages a dramatic pacing of events through the mission, even though the viewer knows the ultimate outcome, from the service module explosion enroute to the Moon to the various efforts to keep the crew alive and bring them back to Earth. The climax of the film is the capsule’s reentry, building up dramatic tension as the seconds tick by waiting for the crew to restore communications after the radio blackout, even as you know that the radio will come to life—eventually.
The film uses footage that, at the very least, has been rarely used, if at all. There is also audio that is similarly obscure or novel: astronaut Tom Stafford calling Vice President Agnew to provide an update on the situation with the spacecraft, or Ken Mattingly calling Marilyn Lovell to tell her what was going on. On the other hand, the film gives less attention to other, better-known aspects of the mission: the effort to develop an adapter for the carbon dioxide scrubber cartridges, highlighted in the Ron Howard movie, is included only briefly in this documentary, as the crew follows instructions radioed from mission control on how to construct the adapter.
Of the three astronauts on Apollo 13, the film focuses more on Lovell, the commander, than Fred Haise or Jack Swigert, following his family closely before and during the mission. That was in part because of the cooperation provided by the Lovell family, which provided family films that were incorporated into the documentary.
“I saw family videos, and the emotion of my mom was very emotional to watch, to be honest with you,” said Susan Lovell, one of Jim Lovell’s daughters, during an on-stage interview after the screening. She said the filmmakers contacted her and her father in early 2021, seeking both permission to create the documentary as well as to access family archives.
That interview ultimately led to a comparison of the documentary with the movie Apollo 13. “I think the movie Apollo 13 personally was extremely well done,” she said. “It followed the true events of what really happened on that flight.”
But, she said, the 1995 movie took some artistic license. “You had to have some of that in there in order to keep the audience’s attention,” she said. One example she gave was a line in the movie attributed to Jim Lovell’s mother: “If they could get a washing machine to fly, my Jimmy could land it.”
The documentary Apollo 13: Survival, though, shows you can keep the audience interested without the dramatic license of invented quips.
A still from Wild Wild Space featuring Astra CEO Chris Kemp (left).
A few hours later, and a few blocks away, the E Street Cinema hosted the world premiere of Wild Wild Space. The documentary is based on Ashlee Vance’s book When the Heavens Went on Sale, which profiled several space startups seeking to find their place in a space economy opened up by the success of SpaceX (see “Review: When the Heavens Went on Sale”, The Space Review, May 15, 2023).
“There’s not many people that in my experience would have the courage to do something like that,” Vance said of the access Astra’s Chris Kemp provided to filmmakers.
Three of the companies profiled in Vance’s book make it to the screen: Astra, Planet, and Rocket Lab. The three are interconnected, with Planet buying launch services from the two rival rocket companies; Chris Kemp worked as a consultant for Planet to study potential launch companies, including Rocket Lab, before going on to start Astra. Both Astra and Planet’s founders worked for Pete Worden when he ran NASA’s Ames Research Center and turned it into a hotbed for innovation. (Worden is among those beyond the company founders interviewed in the documentary.)
The triumphs and tribulations of those companies are probably familiar to most readers, whether or not they have read the book, but the film is compelling nonetheless. Part of it is the footage in the movie, taken behind the scenes at some of the companies as they developed their spacecraft and launch vehicles. We see Peter Beck cheering on his young company’s first suborbital rocket launch, one that, had it failed, may have meant the end of Rocket Lab. There is a lot of footage inside Astra as the company struggled to get its rockets flying, including one launch where the vehicle fell back to earth, exploding next to the pad.
Another part of the film’s success is highlighting the personalities of those involved. Kemp and Beck were interviewed for the movie, as well as Planet co-founders Robbie Schingler and Will Marshall. The contrasts in personalities between, for example, Beck and Kemp, extend to their companies and their approaches to doing business.
Kemp is perhaps the closest to a central character in the documentary, tracing his arc from computer nerd to confident (or overconfident) rocket company CEO. “Chris is a very generous and brave person,” Vance, who was a producer of the movie, said in an on-stage interview after the screening, noting that Kemp gave him and the filmmakers extensive access. “There’s not many people that in my experience would have the courage to do something like that.”
The companies featured in Wild Wild Space have gone in different directions. Planet is now operating a constellation of imaging satellites while working on a new generation, and Rocket Lab is preparing for its 50th Electron launch as soon as this week as it develops the larger Neutron rocket. Astra, though, has not launched since a failure two years ago and had flirted with bankruptcy in recent months as it struggled to stay alive. (Firefly, the fourth company profiled in Vance’s book, isn’t included in the movie; director Ross Kauffman said after the screening that he decided to focus on the other three because of their connections with each other and with Worden.)
The film doesn’t shy away from those problems or other issues facing the industry, like concerns about space debris or a loss of privacy from fleets of commercial imaging satellites. However, the movie is neither a warning of the dangers of commercial space nor an uncritical celebration of space entrepreneurship.
Some of the loudest cheers during the film, for example, came when spaceflight expert Jonathan McDowell, of Jonathan’s Space Report fame, appeared as one of the outside experts interviewed.
Apollo 13: Survival and Wild Wild Space are on different topics, but share some similarities in approach, like the use of news clips to provide background and connective tissue, stitching together scenes and themes. Another similarity is how they will be distributed, via streaming platforms. Apollo 13: Survival is scheduled to be released on Netflix in September, while Wild Wild Space will appear on HBO Max next month. That makes their screenings Saturday in theaters something of an anomaly.
It was for Wild Wild Space in particular a fortunate anomaly. The screening attracted a crowd of space industry insiders and enthusiasts, who laughed and cheered with greater enthusiasm than a typical audience. Some of the loudest cheers during the film, for example, came when spaceflight expert Jonathan McDowell, of Jonathan’s Space Report fame, appeared as one of the outside experts interviewed.
Among those in the audience were Planet’s Marshall and Schingler and even Astra’s Kemp. At the end of the post-screening interview, Kemp sounded as confident as ever about the future of Astra despite its serious struggles, mentioning how he had raised “a ton of money” as part of a deal to take the company private. “The team is super excited to, as a private company, just put our heads down, get focused on putting Rocket 4 back on the pad.” Rocket 4 is the company’s new, larger launch vehicle whose development had stalled during Astra’s financial problems. “Hopefully that will be much more successful.”
It may, at the very least, be fodder for any sequel to Wild Wild Space.
Jeff Foust (jeff@thespacereview.com) is the editor and publisher of The Space Review, and a senior staff writer with SpaceNews. He also operates the Spacetoday.net web site. Views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone.
Harvesting resources from the Moon or other bodies raises questions about how those activities can and should be governed. (credit: ESA)
Space Resources 2024: In search of the Grand Bargain
by Dennis O’Brien Monday, June 3, 2024
The United Nations sponsored two meetings of space resource experts this spring, one in Luxembourg in March and the other in Vienna in April. The meetings were part of public outreach by the new Working Group on the Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activity (Working Group), created by the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). The experts were selected by the member states of COPUOS. Although there was a wide spectrum of opinion on many topics, the possibility of an agreement still seems within reach, a grand bargain that will support the private sector while protecting essential public policies.
The Working Group was formed in 2022 and given a five-year mandate, including the development of possible “additional international governance instruments.” It set five topics to be discussed at the Expert Meetings:
Implications of the legal framework for space resource activities (SRA);
Role of governance, including information-sharing, in supporting SRA;
The scope of future SRA;
Environmental and socioeconomic aspects of SRA;
International cooperation in scientific research and technological development of SRA.
The first two were the focus of the sessions in Vienna and the last three in Luxembourg. However, there was much overlap. Rather than summarizing the views of each expert as presented, this report will instead paraphrase and group them by relevant topics, describing the diverse spectrum of interests, highlighting new ideas and approaches, and suggesting a potential agreement that would address the concerns of all.
1. Overall policy considerations
These are complicated times (global tensions, Ukraine). Outer space offers an opportunity to collaborate beyond our divisions. Resource cooperation can bring us together. International cooperation is a priority, based on our shared values and common interests. We must develop ethics that promote peace, safety, and sustainability.
Space resources activities have a global impact, are not confined to a single nation. They must be peaceful, benefit all, and improve human well-being. The issues are complex, interdisciplinary, and interlinked, but ultimately such activities must be responsible, sustainable, and equitable.
Although building on our common interests is important, some also spoke of the need to address our competing interests: Must protect interests. Balance competing interests. Balancing interests—the key to opening the lock.
2. Current status of space resources governance
There was consensus that the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 (OST) is the foundation of current international space governance, a binding agreement that has been adopted by all countries active in outer space. The articles mentioned most: Art. I (free access, nondiscrimination, benefit/interests of all countries, compliance with international law); Art. II (nonappropriation); Art. VI (compliance by nationals, including private); Art. IX (due regard, avoid harmful interference and contamination); Art. XI (share information).
The Outer Space Treaty incorporates related principles of international law. It supports science but is silent or vague concerning space resource activities. There is an absence of a legal framework for resources. OST Art. VI requires compliance in all national activities, public or private; national obligations are private obligations. OST Art. IX: due regard, respect interests of all member states, regime of consultation. There is good language in the Moon Agreement (MA), especially Article 4 (benefit all, due regard for “interests of present and future generations”)
But there were differing opinions about the inherent nature of outer space:
Outer space is a global commons. Outer space is not a commons. Outer space is a common-pool resource. Outer space is an area beyond national jurisdiction, as used in Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction Treaty [aka BBNJ Treaty, aka High Seas Treaty]. The “Common Heritage of Mankind” is a political term and does not have a fixed legal definition.
Regional agreements are valid, helpful (e.g., Artemis Accords). National laws are part of the legal framework: Luxembourg in 2016 (a small country). Japan’s Space Resources Act of 2021 requires license and publication of activities (e.g., ispace). [Also USA 2015, UAE 2023] [There is a difference of opinion on the extension of national laws beyond a country’s jurisdiction.]
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is already providing governance of space resources (orbital slots and frequencies). ITU is a specific, successful legal regime, and thus a possible model. It promotes rational, economic, efficient, equitable utilization. Art. 42 protects equitable access and preserves resources for future use. [Note: the ITU is now considering expanding its governance to the Moon and cislunar space.]
3. The scope of future space resource activity/governance and process
What is a space resource? Anything that can bring benefit to others. Minerials/materials (including regolith, water), locations/territory (including “peaks of eternal sunlight”). Orbital resources such as slots and frequencies. Earth observations (imaging/data) are a resource, especially for developing countries.
Distinguish between types of resource mining, e.g., in situ resource utilization (ISRU) (e.g., materials used for base building and exploration) versus “reserve” mining for sale on Earth and other locations. Different governance is needed for different types of resource activity. Asteroid mining is likely reserve mining.
COPUOS process essential for creating new framework. Use COPUOS Space Resources Working Group. Different rules for different phases? Similar process to Moon Agreement Art. 11. OST Art. IX consultation process? Call to action: start drafting immediately. [Note: The Moon Agreement calls for review of resource governance every 10 years.]
4. Science and technology; sharing information
The greatest crossover of expert opinions occurred between the topics of information sharing and scientific and technological cooperation. The general opinion seemed to be that scientific discoveries, including new resources, should be shared freely, even by the private sector. Conversely, there was general acknowledgement that intellectual property, including patented technologies, needed to be protected, even as processes were developed to share essential technology with emerging countries.
Sharing information is a form of benefit sharing. Science transcends resource utilization; it increases knowledge of the universe and overall economic activity, and is good for all. Sharing information is essential, promotes transparency, inclusion, confidence building, coordination, capacity building, safety, peace, conflict avoidance, sustainability. Transparency and inclusivity maximize benefits. A range of info could be shared, including scientific data and research; resources are scientific.
OST Art. XI: share the nature, conduct, locations, and results of outer space activities. Registration Convention. International Lunar Research Station policy: share science and technology. Robust governance for info sharing, open data plan, crucial/ethical for SRA. Distinguish between scientific and commercial information. Scientific data in public domain, versus purely commercial. Share scientific knowledge; open source; genetic info and resources. Prospecting/discovery of resources, especially minerals, is scientific; sharing info is a win/win. Sharing info affects capabilities; the stakes are high. Responsibility and sustainability require strong governance and info sharing. Share data on resource locations, and techniques to avoid duplication.
Intellectual Property: OST Art. XI is not absolute: must balance needs/interests of investors. Technology is key. Free versus sale of info. This is still a new endeavor; what info is useful at what time? What is feasible now? There is a need for discretion.
Info sharing applies to private actors. How to encourage the private sector to share info? Registration, interoperability, standardization. Address intellectual property (IP) concerns using national law. [e.g., compensation for a government taking] Partnership with emerging countries. Promote operational cooperation, info exchange; ICGNSS model. [Note: COPUOS is now considering creation of an Action Team on Lunar Activity Coordination (ATLAC), a precursor to an ongoing mechanism for such coordination, which would include private sector participation.] Knowledge increases certainty. The private sector needs to exchange knowledge to be successful. Trade for guarantees/priorities?
5. Social and environmental aspects; sharing benefits
There was consensus on the sentiment expressed in the first paragraph of OST Art. I: “The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” But opinions differed on its interpretation.
OST Art. I was cited repeatedly. Benefit all mankind: resolve divergence, remove obstacles, int’l cooperation, help developing countries. Small countries are important for inclusion, info sharing, accessibility, free exploration, peaceful use. Many small, emerging, and developing countries are already doing space science/collaboration, but positions are unequal. Not all countries have technology and investment capital to access. They need equitable access to resources, technology, information, and capacity building. Space law for new space actors. Equitable access to resources and technology is part of benefit sharing, but what is the best way?
Tension exists between benefit sharing and market practices. Doesn’t have to benefit every country. OST Art. I applies to “activity”, not space itself, therefore no authority for royalties on resources. Monetary sharing of benefits: decouple from resources themselves, focus on market and profits[see reserve mining, above], process for distribution should use sliding scale, help those most in need (e.g., capacity building). The Hague Group Building Blocks (section on Benefit Sharing) seeks balance: share benefits, but no mandatory monetary contributions.
Sustainability (multi-faceted) is the test for all space resource activity. New catalogue of principles based on sustainability. Conformity with existing laws. Identify sustainability in current/additional agreements. Assess every level, every function.
OST Art. IX: no harmful contamination. MA Art. 7: prevent the disruption of the existing balance of environment. Protect the pristine. COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy. Avoid space debris (interferes with goals): reduce, reuse, recycle. Manage, protect. Precautionary mitigation, remediation. Require environmental impact assessments for all space resource activity.
6. Overall governance
There was a spectrum of options presented for future governance, from binding treaties to non-binding guidelines and best practices. There was general agreement that national governments enforce international obligations, including private sector responsibilities.
Governance must assure accountability, responsibility, and accessibility. It must promote economic, ecological, and social justice. It must resolve attribution of rights, sharing of benefits. It must balance public and private concerns. Coordination and cooperation (public and private) are essential, whether binding or nonbinding. Must engage with NGOs. Must honor OST Art. IX, due regard for interests of all countries.
Consider the International Telecommunication Union and the Moon Agreement as models; both promote economic efficiency and equitable utilization of resources. The spirit of MA is still alive.
7. Management and regulation of space resource activity
There was general agreement that supporting the private sector is good public policy. The private sector provides resources, talent, creativity, and enthusiasm that are necessary for a sustainable human presence in outer space.
Encourage and enable utilization and exploitation by those who can. There is a need for an enabling framework for private success: regulations, technology, financing. Moon Agreement section 11.7 is not suitable. Hague Building Blocks: priority rights, advance notice of activities, develop best practices. Set aside 80% of Moon’s resources for private utilization, 20% for public. Understand before regulating. Demonstration projects. Focus on polar resources.
But most also spoke of the need for regulation to protect and promote other essential public policies, such as sustainability and nonappropriation.
Regulation and a legal framework is necessary for economic sustainability; learn from Earth’s economy. Need a framework that not only produces profit but also benefits all; can’t just be economic values and models. An international agency is needed for licenses, compliance, dispute resolution, and environmental monitoring.
Mining equals appropriation. “Safety zones” are de facto appropriation and give priority to whoever gets there first. Safety zones must be subject to international review; their deconfliction function is not obvious. Legal title needed for resource marketability, but who has jurisdiction to grant it? Need to clarify ownership, registration, environmental protection. National space resources acts must be lawful and their implementation must be reasonable.
Several speakers observed that regulation could be different for different types of resources and situations.
Distinguish between utilization for ISRU/exploration and “reserve” mining, with exports to Earth and other locations, and marketing. Reserve mining would be subject to fees, taxation, or royalties; no free dinner. Asteroids are not near-term resources, and must be careful redirecting them. Sudden influx or dumping of precious metals would be harmful to the world economy.
Many speakers noted that the free market economy for space resource activity is already being created on Earth with the development of auxiliary services and supporting technology.
New opportunities, economic opportunities. They will accelerate if done right. Create markets on Earth. Stimulate demand and create customers. Provide services: research and development, sales. Develop technology systems. Technology produces profit, which produces a market economy. Moon services: power, landing pads. Space solar power, sunscreens (energy shortage on Earth). Develop technology for interplanetary, interstellar navigation.
8. New international space resource agreement: pros and cons
A “robust” legal framework is needed for sustainability. An incremental approach is not enough, but instead need predictive governance. International predictive governance is needed for investors. Legal certainty promotes marketability and title. We have principles, but now need predictive rules. Interpretations varied: need all nations to agree. It reduces the risk of conflict and maintains peace and security. National legislation complicates and could harm developing countries: no first-come, first-served. Fly together and go farther.
Don’t be too ambitious. Any new regulation should be narrowly tailored, not predictive. We still don’t know what space resource activity will be. Not ready for new regulation. No need to change prior agreements. Reform existing treaties and include all nations and sectors in the process. Gradual movement: Building Blocks, GEGSLA, ESRIC. Use OST Art. IX to address situations as they arise. It is easier to prohibit bad behavior and prevent harm. National laws and bilateral and regional agreements (e.g. Artemis Accords) are OK if compatible with international law.
Conclusion: the Grand Bargain
The process currently underway at COPUOS is effectively an Article IX consultation under the Outer Space Treaty. It is based on concerns that “an activity or experiment planned by another State Party in outer space… would cause potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space.” There is no need for a new treaty; rather, the States Parties can adopt an Article IX “consultation agreement” that would address the gaps in the OST concerning space resource activity.
Although the market for space resource activity has not yet matured, it is sufficiently foreseeable to allow such an agreement, one with the flexibility to develop standards and recommended practices as circumstances evolve by creating an ongoing mechanism or process that will engage with all stakeholders, including the private sector.
It is not enough to build a framework based on our common interests; we must build one that also addresses our competing interests. We can do that through a Grand Bargain, a legal framework based on a consultation agreement that supports private space resource activity in return for protecting essential public policies. The Space Treaty Project has been promoting a Model Resource Agreement for years. Here is the latest version, modified to consider the ideas and issues raised at the UN-COPUOS international expert conferences:
Model Consultation Agreement, Outer Space Treaty Article IX
1. The States Parties agree to create, by separate agreement, an Agency for Lunar [Outer Space] Activity Coordination (“Agency”), an administrative agency within the secretariat of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Activities.
2. All cislunar [outer space] activities, including space resource activities, shall be registered with the Agency by the country authorizing/supervising the activity, including activities by its nationals.
3. Outer space resources shall include materials, locations, and nonmaterial assets such as radio frequencies.
4. Any materials removed from in place shall become the property of the entity removing them, subject to the entity’s own national laws.
5. All space resource activities shall require an environmental impact assessment that is filed with the Agency prior to commencement of the activity.
6. Access to outer space resources shall be shared. Space resource activities shall be conducted in such a manner so that others can safely access the same resources. Any activity that might deplete a resource shall be subject to additional consultation.
7. The States Parties agree to share scientific data and information on the nature, conduct, locations, and results of space resource activities, including the discovery of new resources. Any concerns regarding private intellectual property shall be addressed using applicable national laws.
8. The Agency shall coordinate the development of standards and recommended practices. Priority will be given to equitable access to technology. No standard or practice shall be adopted that requires technology that is subject to export controls or is otherwise unavailable.
9. There shall be no fees for local utilization of outer space resources. Fees for the marketing of such resources, if any, shall be determined by the States Parties. Any fees collected shall be used to support equitable participation in outer space activities, including capacity building.
10. The States Parties shall review this Agreement in 10 years.
We have reached a pivotal moment in humanity’s history: our departure from the home planet. The decisions made now will affect humanity for decades, perhaps centuries. The closest parallel occurred five centuries ago, when the Age of Exploration became the Age of Imperialism, with its legacy of war, violence, and neglect that still affect us today. We can avoid repeating that pattern, but we must choose to cooperate in the utilization of resources from new worlds. Future generations are counting on us; let us not disappoint them.
Dennis O’Brien is a space lawyer and former member of the NASA-UC Law Research Project in San Francisco. In 2017 he started The Space Treaty Project, a scientific and educational nonprofit based in northern California. Since then, he has produced over 35 papers, presentations, and articles on space law and policy. His most recent presentation, at Space Resources Week 2024 in Luxembourg, focused on the sustainable use of space resources and concerns that humanity is about to repeat the mistakes of the Age of Imperialism.
Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.
Recovering astronauts in the middle of the ocean during the 1960s was a complicated, resource-intensive, and expensive operation. The US Navy provided substantial support for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions, usually an aircraft carrier and other naval vessels. Today, several of the carriers used in these operations—Hornet, Intrepid, and Yorktown—are museum ships, and feature displays about their role in the space program. There are books about the recovery efforts, notably Moon Men Return by Scott Carmichael, and Hornet Plus Three by Bob Fish.
One surprise in the book is a collection of Apollo 11 recovery photos taken in 1969 that have not been widely published or have been otherwise forgotten.
USS Hornet Chronological Pictorial History, published in 2021, also contains some information on this subject. The Hornet (CV-12), was built during World War II after her predecessor (CV-8), which launched the famous Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in 1942, was lost in October 1942, after barely a year in service. The second Hornet carrier finished out the war with distinction and continued to serve the Navy until 1970.
This book is the second in a series (the first is somewhat confusingly labeled Volume I and Volume II). It is a collection of black and white photographs of the USS Hornet in operation between 1953 and 1970, and a few photos after the ship’s decommissioning. The book is apparently a print-on-demand publication sponsored by the Hornet museum, and the overall quality of the photo reproductions is not high. Nevertheless, the photos are unique, and hard to find. They show the ship in various settings and configurations during this period.
The book contains approximately one dozen photos of Hornet’s service during the Apollo 11 and 12 recoveries, many not previously published.
The book includes photos of air operations and crew activities, including celebrations and liberty call. The photos are accompanied by a small map showing the area of the world where the ship was operating when the photo was taken, and most photos include citation information such as a National Archives accession number. Hornet was labeled an “attack carrier” for much of this time before being converted to support anti-submarine warfare (hence the change in her designation from “CVA” to “CVS”). At the beginning of the period covered in the book, Hornet quickly crossed the Atlantic into the Mediterranean and through the Suez Canal, and then spent the rest of her career operating in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Less than a year before Hornet’s retirement, the ship was assigned as primary recovery ship for the Apollo 11 and 12 missions. The Hornet is currently moored at the old Alameda Naval Air Station.
The book contains approximately one dozen photos of Hornet’s service during the Apollo 11 and 12 recoveries, many not previously published.
One surprise in the book is a collection of Apollo 11 recovery photos taken in 1969 that have not been widely published or have been otherwise forgotten. Most histories of Apollo have used only a few photos from only a few missions, and often the same photos have been reproduced in many different books. That does not mean that there are no other photos from the events during those missions, only that they have not been widely distributed. The photos include the recovery of the astronauts and their spacecraft, the astronauts’ arrival on the ship (where they wore protective suits in case they were contaminated with any “Moon germs”), the temporary astronaut living quarters in a converted Airstream trailer, and the ship’s return to Pearl Harbor. A few years ago, an Apollo 11 documentary ended with restored film footage showing Hornet arriving at Pearl, and the astronaut living quarters being removed from the ship. Although that event was covered in the news at the time, most histories barely mention it, so film and photos of the event serve as a reminder that Apollo recovery was a major logistical operation.
The book contains approximately one dozen photos of Hornet’s service during the Apollo 11 and 12 recoveries, many not previously published.
The book also has photos of the Apollo 12 recovery later in 1969. If Apollo 12 became a footnote in history, then the recovery effort has been treated by historians as a footnote to a footnote, but the book is a reminder that there was a substantial effort to recover that crew as well. Hornet was retired in June 1970 and then spent two decades in mothballs before being cleaned up and turned into a museum ship. I have visited the ship numerous times, along with several other aircraft carrier museums. Hornet looks the worse for wear and suffers from being located in an area that is not as centrally located as some other museum ships. As this collection of photographs demonstrates, the ship had a long and illustrious history.
Dwayne Day has long been fascinated by aircraft carriers and is one of those people who considers it a tragedy that the USS Enterprise was scrapped after World War II. He can be reached at zirconic1@cox.net.
An illustration of Chang’e-6 on the surface of the lunar farside. (credit: CNSA)
China’s interest in the far side of the Moon: scientific, military, or economic?
by Carlos Alatorre Monday, April 29, 2024
On January 3, 2019, China achieved the first successful landing on the far side of the Moon with the Chang’e-4 probe. Twelve hours after touching down in the Von Karman Crater near the Moon’s south pole, the accompanying Yutu-2 rover began an exploration of the crater, a region that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had explored before. This achievement was announced, gaining much fanfare within China as the first nation to deliver a probe to the far side.
As announced in a China National Space Administration (CNSA) press release, the Chang’e-4 mission offered three main benefits: scientific discovery through crater exploration, international cooperation through cooperative missions, and a platform for future missions beyond cislunar space. But what is China’s true interest in the far side of the Moon? With the CNSA overseen indirectly by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), is an operation of this nature merely a demonstration of military capability or a global announcement of great power status? China’s focus on the far side of the Moon may have elements of diplomatic and military positioning, but evidence suggests its aims are more focused on strategic resource extraction, and the Chang’e missions are the starting gun in a lunar energy race.
China’s focus on the far side of the Moon may have elements of diplomatic and military positioning, but evidence suggests its aims are more focused on strategic resource extraction.
After the success of the Chang’e 4 mission, China launched the Chang’e-5 on November 23, 2020, as part of a sample return mission based on the data received by the Yutu-2 rover. Chang’e-5 returned to Earth, landing in Inner Mongolia on December 16 with two kilograms of lunar material. Upon return, the CNSA and the China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA) jointly announced the discovery of a new mineral, Changesite-(Y). The mineral is a single-crystalline particle that was extracted from the lunar soil thanks to drilling from the Chang’e-5. Li Ziying, chief scientist of lunar sample research at the Beijing Research Institute of Uranium Geology, claims that the mineral will “help scientists understand the physical traits and history of the Moon.” However, Changesite-(Y) is also attractive for its energy usage. Traces of helium-3, a potential fuel source for nuclear fusion power plants and in limited supply on Earth, were identified in the lunar mineral leading to the CAEA’s interest.
According to the University of Wisconsin’s Fusion Technology Institute, the potential energy output from 40 grams of helium-3 is equivalent to 5,000 tons of coal. There are estimates by Seattle-based company Interlune, a helium-3 harvesting startup, that more than one million tons of helium-3 is the Moon just under the surface. Despite the recent attention that lunar resource exploration has been receiving, Ouyang Ziyuan, director of the CNSA’s Moon exploration program, stated as far back as 2002 that the Moon “could serve as a new and tremendous supplier of energy and resources for human beings…this is crucial to sustainable development of human beings on Earth…whoever first conquers the Moon will benefit first.”
Although China may have been a latecomer to the Apollo-style missions of the 20th century, it has attempted to gain a head start in the lunar energy race with the advent of the Chang’e missions. From a diplomatic and strategic standpoint, it would benefit China to own the narrative that it alone can lead the scientific discovery of new forms of clean energy using sophisticated lunar operations like the Chang’e lander missions or the placement of the Queqiao relay satellite in Lagrange point 2, an admittedly impressive feat used for rover communication that had never been done before.
From a diplomatic and strategic standpoint, it would benefit China to own the narrative that it alone can lead the scientific discovery of new forms of clean energy using sophisticated lunar operations like the Chang’e lander missions.
China isn’t alone in this search for resources. The US, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea, and various private firms are all interested in and planning lunar missions for potential resource extraction. According to Namrata Goswami, “China is the only country to articulate a long-term vision of space settlement and utilization. It is the only country to have invested serious money in future space technologies like space-based solar power that will help power such a lunar base.” The lunar base referred to is the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), which will be jointly constructed and operated by China and Russia and placed near the unexplored south pole. The ILRS is being touted as a rival to the US-led Artemis program, which is a new series of manned lunar missions after a 50-year hiatus.
Helium-3 isn’t the only potential power source on the Moon that could fuel a lunar energy race. Frozen water hiding in the craters of the south pole and rare earth elements like scandium and yttrium, used in electronics, could be a gold mine for the nation or company that finds those resources first. Critical minerals and rare earth elements have become necessary for military components and battery construction for the clean-energy transition. After cornering the market in rare earth elements from the purchase of lithium, cobalt, and nickel mines, China has a vested interest in prospecting lunar sites and laying claim to resources discovered. It is unclear how lunar mining rights and territorial claims will work when the UN’s Outer Space Treaty of 1967 forbids any nation from claiming sovereignty of a celestial body. However, without an agreed-upon enforcement mechanism, and China’s recent history of claiming territoriality through first navigation in the South China Sea, the international community may one day see an all-out 49er-style gold rush to the Moon.
Carlos Alatorre is an MA graduate in Statecraft and National Security Affairs from The Institute of World Politics. His research focuses on China’s operational capabilities in orbit and strategic deterrence in cislunar space.
Mkhitar Hayrapetyan, Minister of High-Tech Industry of the Republic of Armenia, signs the Artemis Accords June 12 as (from left) Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Jennifer Littlejohn, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, and Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to the United States Lilit Makunts look on. (credit: NASA/Joel Kowsky)
The same commercial capabilities enabling new science at the Moon, like the LuSEE-Night radio astronomy experiment, could also jeopardize that research. (credit: NASA/Firefly Aerospace)
A still from Wild Wild Space featuring Astra CEO Chris Kemp (left).
Harvesting resources from the Moon or other bodies raises questions about how those activities can and should be governed. (credit: ESA)
The book contains approximately one dozen photos of Hornet’s service during the Apollo 11 and 12 recoveries, many not previously published.
The book contains approximately one dozen photos of Hornet’s service during the Apollo 11 and 12 recoveries, many not previously published.
The book contains approximately one dozen photos of Hornet’s service during the Apollo 11 and 12 recoveries, many not previously published.
An illustration of Chang’e-6 on the surface of the lunar farside. (credit: CNSA)
jacksmars 