Growing interest in lunar resources could cause tensions, scientists say

An international team of scientists, led by the Center for Astrophysics / Harvard & Smithsonian, has identified a problem with the growing interest in extractable resources on the Moon: there isn’t enough for everyone. In the absence of policies or international agreements to decide “who gets what and from where,” scientists believe tensions, overpopulation and rapid resource depletion are a possible future for lunar mining projects. . The article published today in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.

“Many people see space as a place of peace and harmony between nations. The problem is, there is no law to regulate who can use the resources, and a significant number of space agencies and others in the private sector aim to land on the moon within the next five years, ”he said. said Martin Elvis, astronomer at the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian and the main author of the article. “We looked at all the Moon maps that we could find and found that few places had resources of interest, and those that did were very small. This creates a lot of room for conflicts over certain resources. . “

Resources such as water and iron are important because they will allow future research on the Moon and launch them from it. “You don’t want to bring resources to support the Earth mission, you would much rather get them from the Moon. Iron is important if you want to build anything on the Moon; it would be absurdly expensive to transport iron on the moon. “Elvis said.” You need water to survive; you need it to grow food – you don’t bring your salad with you from Earth – and to divide oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for fuel. “

Interest in the moon as a place of resource extraction is not new. A large body of research dating back to the Apollo program has explored the availability of resources such as helium, water, and iron, with more recent research focusing on continuous access to solar power, cold traps, and frozen water deposits; and even volatile substances that may exist in shaded areas on the moon’s surface. Tony Milligan, principal investigator of the Cosmological Visionaries project at King’s College London, and co-author of the paper, said: “Since moon rock samples returned by the Apollo program indicated the presence of Helium-3, the moon was one of several strategic resources that were targeted. “

While some treaties do exist, like the 1967 Outer Space Treaty – banning national ownership – and the 2020 Artemis agreements – reaffirming the duty of coordination and notification – none are intended for solid protection. . Much of the discussion around the moon, and including the current and potential politics to govern satellite missions, has been about scientific activity versus commercial activity, and who should be allowed to tap in the resources locked in and on the moon. According to Milligan, this is a very 20th century debate, and does not address the real problem. “The biggest problem is that everyone is targeting the same sites and resources: states, private companies, everyone. But these are limited sites and resources. We don’t have a second moon to go to. That’s all we need to work on. with. ”Alanna Krolikowski, assistant professor of science and technology policy at the Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) and co-author of the paper, added that a framework for success already exists and, associated with a good old-fashioned business sense, can set policy on track. “While a comprehensive international legal regime for managing space resources remains a distant prospect, important conceptual foundations already exist and we can begin to implement , or at least to deliberate, concrete local steps to resolve the problems expected at specific sites today, “Krolikowski said.” The likely first step will be to assemble a community of potential users, made up of those who will be active at a given site over the next ten years or so. Their first objective should be to identify the worst cases, the most pernicious forms. overcrowding and interference, which they seek to avoid at every site. Loss aversion tends to motivate actors. “

There is always a risk that resource locations will turn out to be rarer than currently thought, and scientists want to go back and get a clearer picture of resource availability before anyone starts digging, drilling, or drilling. collect. “We need to go back and map the resource hotspots with better resolution. At the moment we only have a few miles at best. If the resources are all contained in a smaller area, the problem will only be s. ‘make it worse,’ Elvis said. “If we can map the smaller spaces, it will inform policy making, allow information sharing and help everyone play well together to avoid conflict.”

While more research on these lunar hotspots is needed to inform policy, the framework of possible solutions to potential overcrowding is already in sight. “Examples of analogues on Earth indicate mechanisms for dealing with these challenges. Common resources on Earth, resources over which no actor can claim competence or ownership, offer information to be gleaned. Some of these are on a global scale, like the high seas, while others are local like fish stocks or lakes to which several small communities share access, ”Krolikowski said, adding that the one of the first challenges for policy makers will be to characterize the resources at stake at each individual site. “These resources, for example, are real estate areas located on peaks of eternal light of great value, where the sun is almost always shining, or are they units of energy to be generated from solar panels installed there? -low? At what level can they realistically How should the benefits of these activities be distributed? Developing agreement on these issues is probably a prerequisite for the successful coordination of activities at these particularly attractive lunar sites. ”