The Artemis Accords, guidelines for lunar exploration, were drafted by US officials under the Trump administration. Although they were created by a single nation, they have the potential to influence future lunar outposts, colonies, and space mining. The agreements were disclosed by the administration in May 2020, when it was still unknown whether the Artemis program would continue under a new president. But as NASA engineers announced on Monday, the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft will launch on August 29 on an unmanned mission to orbit the moon, making these issues no longer purely theoretical. For the astronauts’ return to the lunar surface in 2025 or 2026, NASA has already selected a few potential landing sites, all of which are close to locations on the south pole that may contain much-needed water ice.
The accords lay out a US-led strategy for exploring the moon and beyond, with rules for what future robotic spacecraft and astronauts can and shouldn’t do. Their reach encompasses Mars, comets, and asteroids. Actors must, for instance, only use space for peaceful purposes, disseminate scientific information to the general public, and establish safety zones surrounding their lunar activities. The treaties also put trade on an equal footing with scientific research.
The accords have been ratified by 21 nations so far, most recently Saudi Arabia and France, as well as regular NASA partners, Japan, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Russia and China, in particular, have not. Germany, a significant member of the European Space Agency, has not either.
The accords, unlike earlier international agreements, are not treaties, but they may nonetheless replace more formal legislation as de facto standards. The Artemis Accords, according to Kaitlyn Johnson, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the non-profit Center for Strategic and International Studies, are more of a declaration of policy for the United States: “This is how we intend to act on the moon, and these are our principles that we’re going to follow.” But as more governments, particularly major spacefaring states, sign on, the treaties become more significant.
The US unilaterally established a legal foundation for the accords, and Dean Cheng, an expert on China’s space program at the Heritage Foundation, concurs. He then pieced bilateral agreements with other nations together, most of which are close allies. The Artemis Accords, to use the phrase former President George W. Bush used to describe the international coalition that invaded Iraq, are essentially a “coalition of the willing”—if you can still use that term without irony—of nations saying, “We’re all interested in joining with the US, and we’re in agreement with the rules,” Cheng claims.
As more nations sign on, the agreements may become more influential and some practices may become global. These might involve space powers cooperating to prevent space debris from entering orbit or to inform one another about upcoming lunar expeditions. It’s similar to what UN diplomats do when they talk about “rules of behavior” in space.
According to Timiebi Aganaba, a space governance specialist at Arizona State University in Phoenix, the US government is essentially attempting to persuade others of their view of the Outer Space Treaty, which predates the space industry and attempts to extract space resources. The US is trying to get other countries to agree with this point of view by promoting their interpretation and making bilateral agreements.They’ll then claim that this is a representation of custom, she predicts.
Chinese and Russian officials have denounced the Artemis Accords and said they have no intention of joining, comparing it to colonization or a program “resembling NATO.” These two nations are significant space competitors. Russia has long been a space superpower, even though its space program may be in some danger as a result of the sanctions and partnership losses that followed its invasion of Ukraine. In the meantime, Artemis may face competition from China’s Chang’e lunar exploration program, which has evolved quickly during the previous 20 years. Future ambitions for the moon by the country include sending a rover, circling a spacecraft, sending a sample return mission, and eventually constructing a lunar research center alongside Russia. (Like Artemis, Chang’e has a deity name.)
According to Cheng, China’s space program will continue to operate independently while it prepares its moon missions rather than join the Artemis Accords: “China is saying, ‘We’re going to set our own laws.” However, he continues, China may adopt some of the treaties’ best practices.
The private space industry seems to benefit from the accords. They expand on the Space Act from the Obama administration in 2015 and the executive order from the previous president, Trump, in 2020, both of which aimed to support the private sector and make mining on the moon and asteroids easier. They make it clear that no country may lay claim to property in space, but they can exploit resources for their own needs, such as minerals that could be used to make 3D-printed structures and ice that can be used for drinking water and propellants.
According to Rossana Deplano, a scholar at the University of Leicester in the UK who has thoroughly examined the impact of the Artemis Accords on international space law, if astronauts need to grab any lunar ice on a future Artemis trip, that won’t be a legal issue. The Outer Space Treaty permits the use of resources if they are needed to support a scientific mission. According to her, there is nothing illegal for the US or other international partners to participate in the Artemis missions because they are, by definition, scientific missions.
However, the agreement also states that space exploration must be done “for the benefit of all people.” Private companies routinely receive contracts from NASA and the European Space Agency, and some of them are taking part in the Artemis mission. If these businesses have their own plans for the moon, it might fall under the category of illegal activity. According to Deplano, there is currently nothing stopping NASA partners like SpaceX or Blue Origin from developing technologies with government investment funds, reusing those technologies independently, and using the moon’s extremely limited ice and desirable landing sites for their own commercial purposes.
As a result, businesses from advanced spacefaring states like the US and its allies might benefit earlier from moon exploration. In essence, Deplano claims, “This is a privileged environment, which would allow certain regions of the world to develop considerably faster than others—developing the technology and know-how which would allow the economic exploitation of those resources.”
Aganaba anticipates more legal disputes involving private mining as well. The Moon Agreement of 1979 places stricter restrictions on mining and declares that “the moon and its natural riches constitute the common inheritance of mankind.” It was negotiated at the UN and signed by 18 countries, starting with largely Latin American and Eastern European states. This viewpoint would make it more difficult for private firms to extract and utilize those resources. The Moon Agreement was not signed by the US or the majority of other major spacefaring nations. Nonetheless, Aganaba notes that it has a comparable number of signatories to the Artemis Accords, making it difficult to determine which will be more significant.
Jessica West, a space security expert at the Waterloo, Ontario-based Project Ploughshares, will be keeping an eye on how the Artemis Accords are implemented in terms of safeguarding the moon itself. The treaties specify only Apollo-era landing sites as “heritage” locations that must be protected; the lunar landscape is not included. They also demand “sustainable” measures, which, according to West, only aim to stop more junk from piling up in Earth orbit and do not focus on resource conservation. They don’t forbid completely searching a crater for ice, depriving future generations and less developed space programs of a necessary resource or visibly changing the way the moon appears in the night sky, for example.
The concept of “benefits” is exclusively applied to science under the accords; it does not apply to potential revenues from, say, mining lunar ice. What does it mean for something to benefit everyone, or to have a universal benefit? West queries “That’s a broad principle, but in reality, it’s not required. That has traditionally meant exchanging scientific knowledge but not receiving compensation.
The Artemis Accords reflect the US’s current vision for the moon, but Johnson of the Aerospace Security Project questions whether worries about inequality would worsen or how other international projects will proceed. Colonialism and the benefit of the first mover are ongoing challenges, she claims. At the moment, wealthier nations control access to the moon and set the regulations. There isn’t much equity there.
