Artemis Accords - A for Effort

During the first manned spacecraft mission, in 1961, the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin spent 108 minutes in Earth's orbit. (ESA). That same year the Apollo program was initiated, and 8 years later the U.S. managed to plop Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon captivating the world for 2 hours and 15 minutes. (NASA; History.com). Today we face a similar competition between the east and the west, but a notable difference from the Apollo area is that the stakes are higher, and the rewards are greater.

The moon not only holds great scientific mysteries, but it is also home to several key minerals which contain, inter alia, oxygen that can be used to produce breathable air for a potential future moon base. (Allen, NASA).  Calcium, which is a very scarce resource on earth, is plentiful on the moon. (Prado, Permanent). Calcium can be used as a component to produce conductors for solar cells. (Ignatiev et. al., University of Houston). Most notably, discoveries of water on the south pole ice-pockets of the moon could be a game changer for deep space exploration. (NASA). Water can be used to produce rocket bi-propellants and extract hydrogen and molecular oxygen- key components if the moon would serve as the launching pad for further exploration. (NASA). These are just some of the resources that have been discovered on the moon. Whoever takes lead on exploring the moon will gain immense economic and political power in future space exploration. 

The Artemis Program launched by NASA will land the first woman and the first person of color on the moon in the next decade. (Dunbar, NASA). It will also establish a “long-term presence” on the moon through the Artemis space camp which will serve as the hub for scientific projects which will contribute to the horizon objective: the exploration of Mars. (Id.) The Artemis Program will be a joint operation between commercial and international partners of NASA. (Id.) The first location to visit will be the lunar south pole. (Id.) NASA has developed the Artemis Accords - a legal instrument open for ratification to anyone who adheres to NASA’s vision. (Artemis Accords, NASA). 

The full name of the Artemis accords is “The Artemis Accords – Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets and, Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes”. The Artemis Accords connects to the Outer Space Treaty (OST) from 1973 with the reference “for peaceful purposes” but extends the applicability to the “use of the moon…” which references the use of lunar resources. (Hallgren et al., Swedish Defence Research Agency). The Artemis Accord’s purpose is to set common principles for the continued exploration of the moon and Mars for government space actors and organizations. (Id). NASA has used the language from the International Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which promotes openness, interoperability, and registration of space objects. (IGA). Another aspect of the Artemis Accords is the provisions on resources. Section 10 of the accords references the OST, which calls for the peaceful extraction and utilization of space resources. (sc. 10, Artemis Accords).  In Section 11, one gets a somber reminder that states tend to not get along. Section 11 is about the deconfliction of space activities and here NASA discusses the concept of “harmful interference” which is any conduct that may pose a safety hazard. (sc. 11, Artemis Accords). To combat these potential “harmful interferences'' NASA proposes “safety zones”. (sc. 11 para. 6, Artemis Accords). These are established by the signatory by notification and require them to “commit to coordinating with a relevant actor to avoid Harmful interference”. (sc. 11 para. 10, Artemis Accords). A safety zone may not restrict access to an area, all in light of openness and the provisions of the OST. (sc. 11 para. 11, Artemis Accords). A notable omission is the lack of prohibition against military infrastructure which is not guaranteed by the OST. (Kramer, Axios).  

If we would illustrate the signed parties to the Artemis Accords on a Mercator map the west part is predominantly green whilst the east is gray (except for Japan). (Mercator Map Projection). So, what is the east side up to?

The Chinese Lunar Exploration Program is the east’s block equivalent to the Artemis Program. (Jones, SpaceNews). The program developed in a partnership between Russia and China where the parties have created the China and Russia Joint Working Group (JWG). (CNSA). The program’s goal is to start the construction of a moon base in 2030 on the south pole of the moon. (Id.; Jones, SpaceNews). Luckily, the JWG initiative has sent out an official invitation to all international parties that may be interested in the “sustainable development of United Nations (UN) outer space activities” and participating in the development of the moon base. (CNSA). China has entered into extensive partnership agreements with Brazil, Russia, and India regarding the development of satellite capabilities and it has garnered 149 space cooperation agreements or memorandums of understanding with 46 national space agencies. (CSNA). China has not yet disclosed a comprehensive partnership agreement equal to the Artemis Accords which begs the question of what agreements they intend to honor since the endeavors pursued on the moon mostly fall outside the scope of the OST. 

From the above observations, one thing becomes apparent, both the Artemis Program and the Chinese equivalent have the same mission: to establish a long-term presence on the moon both for commercial and state purposes. This raises the question: Are we facing a space race or a star war, or amicable cooperation?

NASA administrator Bill Nelson seems to have turned the ignition on the space race car by making a stark statement about China’s moon goals. Nelson believes that a competitive environment might induce China to claim a resource-rich location as sovereign territory. (Bender, Politico). Chinese presence on the moon has for good reason sparked concern in the U.S. military ranks due to the moon’s strategic military significance. (Id.) From the moon, one can place systems capable of lasering down satellites, disrupting communication, and obtaining surveillance in the Cis-Lunar space, space between the earth and the moon. This would, among other things, potentially disable warning systems for ballistic missile attacks on earth. (Chang, Newsweek). Wang Yanan, editor-in-chief of Aerospace Knowledge, commented on Bill Nelson's statements by saying he’s “sensationalizing ‘China's threat in space’ in an attempt to raise funds for NASA. (Lei, China Daily). In a more official response, Liu Pengyu, a Chinese embassy spokesperson in Washington, responded to the U.S. official's concerns by calling them out for misrepresenting the normal and legitimate space endeavors of China. (Chang, Newsweek). He went on to debunk the speculations of China weaponizing the moon by referencing that space is ‘humanity’s common endeavor and should benefit all’. (Id.) How amusing or reassuring such statements from Chinese insiders may be, there are indications that China also turned the ignition on their space race car. In 2017 the head of China’s lunar program compared the moon to Diaoyu Islands which are under Japanese administration but claimed by Beijing as Chinese territory. (Id.) Even though China is prohibited from claiming sovereign territory on the moon, this rhetoric tells a high-octane environment behind the scenes in the Chinese Lunar Program and considering China's questionable relationship with international law such statements should not be taken lightly. (Article II, OST; Al Jazeera). 

Regardless of these differences both U.S. and China have initiated a productive discussion in various international seminars regarding uniting their common lunar efforts. One ex-NASA official said, “I’m a Star Trek fan, so I’m optimistic”. (Hitchens, Breaking Defense). So, can the Artemis Accords contribute to amicable cooperation? 

There are mainly two sets of challenges that hinder collaboration between the biggest space states. 

Firstly, the Wolf amendment restricts U.S. collaboration with China on virtually anything regarding space exploration. (Young, Defence360). Even though there has been cooperation between the nations, the Wolf amendment restricts any meaningful coaction towards developing a potential future moon base. (Id.) Subsequently, Russia has expressed that the Artemis accords are “west-oriented” since the text has been drafted by a very limited number of like-minded nations and excludes Russia’s biggest space buddy, China. (Foust, SpaceNews). Secondly, the sanctions against Russia due to the unlawful occupation of Ukraine have halted supply chains to and from Russia and ended long-term space collaboration with several nations such as Germany. (Gamillo, Smithsonian). After Russia announced they would stop supplying rocket engines to the U.S., Dmitry Rogozin, the head of the Russian space agency (Roscosmos) gave an insightful proposal for the U.S. that maybe they could use their “broomsticks” instead. (Reuters). On the European side, the European Space Agency (ESA) has not signed itself as a partner to the Artemis Accords due to discussions between the EU member states regarding the exploitation of the moon's resources. (Young, Defence360). However, ESA and NASA managed to sign a Memorandum of Understanding stipulating cooperation regarding a “Lunar Gateway” which is an additional moon base. (ESA). The ESA and NASA memorandum does not have any provisions relating to the extraction or usage of the moon's resources. (Id). With these circumstances in mind, especially the lack of contingency on the moon resource matter and the lack of prohibitions against military infrastructure on the moon, it might just be so that the Artemis Accords is a blunt tool for building an efficient and cooperative environment for future space exploration. 

I believe the above illustrates that these matters need to be dealt with before the ‘ignition-launch’ command. A failure to combine the efforts of the east and west might just provoke additional conflicts on earth and potentially create a hostile environment on the moon. Unfortunately, the current geopolitical circumstances prohibit the idea of a common legal framework. Reminiscing the Apollo days when it was more likely that the U.S. would meet a Moonman than a party to the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program, this would be a naive assumption nowadays considering that east and west are currently working in the same direction with similar capabilities. It is crucial this epic endeavor for mankind does not fall victim to pride.