The Moon has resources, but not enough to go around

It’s no secret that during this decade, NASA and other space agencies will be bringing us back to the Moon (to stay, this time!) The key to this plan is to develop the necessary infrastructure to support a sustainable crewed exploration and research program. The commercial space sector also hopes to create moon tourism and moon mining, by extracting and selling some of the Moon’s vast resources on the open market.

Ah, but there is a catch! According to an international team of scientists led by the Harvard & Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), there may not be enough resources on the Moon to go around. Without clear international policies and agreements in place to determine who can claim what and where, the Moon could quickly become overcrowded, overburdened and stripped of its resources.

The team consisted of Martin Elvis, a CfA astronomer who led the study, as well as Alanna Krolikowski (Missouri University of Science and Technology) and Tony Milligan (King’s College London). The article describing their findings was recently published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A titled “Concentrated Lunar Resources: Imminent Implications for Governance and Justice.”

As Dr Elvis explains in a CfA press release, he and his colleagues were motivated by what they see as common assumptions regarding lunar exploration:

“Many people see space as a place of peace and harmony between nations. The problem is that there is no law to regulate who can use the resources, and there are a significant number of space agencies and others in the private sector that aim to land on the moon within five coming years. We looked at all the maps of the Moon 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. “

Currently, treaties are already in place to govern space activities. For example, there is the Outer Space Treaty which was signed in 1967 by the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom and which has since been ratified by 110 countries in total. In addition to banning the testing and deployment of nuclear weapons in outer space, this treaty prohibits nations from claiming sovereignty over celestial bodies.

Then there are the more recent Artemis Accords, which reaffirm the participants’ commitment to coordinate and inform each other about their activities on the Moon. However, neither the Outer Space Treaty nor the Artemis Agreements prohibited private companies or individuals from declaring ownership of celestial objects, leaving the door open to things like prospecting and mining. of asteroids and lunar mining.

At present, discussions have focused on scientific activities versus business activities on the Moon and the rules regarding who can extract resources from where. Much of this stems from the fact that space agencies and commercial interests hope to harvest resources locally – in situ resource use (ISRU) – in order to meet their needs cost-effectively. As Elvis explains:

“You don’t want to contribute 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 to the moon. You need water to survive; you need it to grow food – you don’t bring your salad with you from Earth – and to divide yourself into oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for fuel. “

Interest in lunar resources and concerns about appropriation date back to the early days of the space race. During the Apollo era, extensive research was conducted to explore the availability of resources such as water, iron, and helium. More recently, research has focused on continued access to solar energy, water ice deposits and possibly volatile compounds in permanently shaded areas on the Moon.

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.

According to Milligan, a senior researcher at the Cosmological Visionaries Project at King’s College London, the question of resources does not solve the real problem. “The biggest problem is that everyone is targeting the same sites and resources: states, private companies, everyone,” he said. “But these are limited sites and resources. We don’t have a second moon to go to. That’s all we have to work with. ”

There is also the risk that these sites and their resources will be more limited than currently thought. For this reason, scientists are eager to return to the moon to get a clearer picture of resource availability before anyone starts to prospect and mine for anything. Said Elvis:

“We need to go back and map resource hot spots with better resolution. At the moment we only have a few kilometers at best. If the resources are all contained in a smaller area, the problem will only get worse. If we can map the smallest spaces, it will inform policy making, allow information sharing, and help everyone play well together to avoid conflict.

At present, the main challenge for policy makers will be to characterize the resources at play at each individual site and it is clear that more research is needed to inform policy. But according to Krolikowski, assistant professor of science and technology policy at Missouri S&T), there is already a conceptual foundation that (combined with old-fashioned good business sense) could lead to a comprehensive legal regime.

For example, the Outer Space Treaty and the Artemis Accords stress that activities on the Moon must comply with international law. They also hold signatories accountable for the activities of third parties in areas over which they have jurisdiction. Beyond that, there are countless legal issues that need to be addressed, but efforts are underway to ensure that this happens before any lunar settlement.

For example, you have organizations like the Space Court Foundation (SCF), a non-profit organization created by lawyers and space experts dedicated to fostering a conversation about the evolving field called “law of space”. As we discussed in a previous article, the Foundation also creates an archive where relevant documentation and the most up-to-date version of space laws can be found.

Another step that needs to be taken, Krolikowski said, is summoning the parties who will actively seek out the identified resource sites in the next decade. Among the most important issues to be addressed is loss aversion, where strategies can be developed to avoid overcrowding, interference, and other worst-case scenarios at individual sites.

In addition, information can be provided by examining research at comparable sites on Earth. Says Krolikowski:

“Examples of analogues on Earth indicate mechanisms for dealing with these challenges. The common resources on Earth, resources over which no act can claim jurisdiction or ownership, offer information to be gleaned. Some of them are global, like the high seas, while others are local, like fish stocks or lakes to which several small communities have access. ”

So far, several space agencies have announced plans to create a permanent human outpost on the Moon – including NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), the China National Space Administration (CNSA), Roscomos and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). . There are also many projects to create bases for moon tourism and other business ventures.

For each of these plans, sites need to be spotted well in advance to determine if they have the right balance of resources. These are not only necessary to build and maintain the necessary structures, but also to ensure that they can meet the needs of their occupants in a sustainable manner. But with limited sites and resources to work with, procedures will need to be in place to ensure that we don’t end up fighting for what there is.

Yet another challenge that must be met before humanity can once again plant its boots and flags on the moon. But on the bright side, it shows just how close we are to becoming an “interplanetary civilization.” The fact that we are at this point where we need to think about how to resolve legal and territorial disputes on the Moon shows how close we are to going back there to stay.

However we choose to solve this problem, the next two decades will certainly be an interesting time to live!

Further reading: CfA, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A