Image source, Getty Images
We’re in the middle of a moon storm. A growing number of countries and companies are eyeing the moon’s surface in a race for resources and space dominance. So are we ready for this new era of lunar exploration?
This week, images of the Chinese flag being unfurled on the moon were sent back to Earth. It’s the country’s fourth landing there — and the first mission ever to return samples from the far side of the moon. In the past 12 months, India and Japan have also landed spacecraft on the lunar surface. In February, US company Intuitive Machines became the first private company to land a lander on the moon, with many more to come.
Meanwhile, NASA wants to send people back to the moon, with the Artemis astronauts aiming for a 2026 landing. China says it will send people to the moon by 2030. And instead of fleeting visits, the plan is to build permanent bases.
But in an era of renewed great power politics, this new space race could end up exporting Earth’s tensions to the moon’s surface.
“Our relationship with the moon will change fundamentally very soon,” warns Justin Holcomb, a geologist at the University of Kansas. The speed of space exploration is now “beyond our laws,” he says.
A 1967 UN agreement says that no country can own the moon. Instead, the fantastically named Outer Space Treaty says it belongs to everyone, and that all exploration must be conducted for the benefit of all humanity and in the interests of all nations.
Although it sounds very peaceful and collaborative – and it is – the driving force behind the Outer Space Treaty was not cooperation, but Cold War politics.
As tensions between the US and the Soviet Union increased after World War II, there were fears that space could become a military battlefield. So the most important part of the treaty was that no nuclear weapons could be sent into space. More than 100 countries have signed up.
But this new space age looks different than it did back then.
Image source, Getty Images
One big change is that modern lunar missions are not just the projects of countries; companies also compete.
In January, a U.S. commercial mission called Peregrine announced it would return human ashes, DNA samples and a sports drink, complete with branding, to the moon. A fuel leak prevented it from ever getting there, but it sparked debate about how delivering this eclectic inventory fit into the treaty’s principle that exploration should benefit all humanity.
“We’re just starting to send stuff there just because we can. There is no rhyme or reason anymore,” said Michelle Hanlon, a space attorney and founder of For All Moonkind, an organization that aims to protect the Apollo landing sites. “Our moon is within reach and now we are starting to abuse it,” she says.
But even as private entrepreneurship expands on the moon, nation-states ultimately still remain the key players in all of this. Sa’id Mostehsar, director of the London Institute of Space Policy and Law, says any company must get permission from a state to go into space, which is limited by international treaties.
There is still a lot of prestige to be gained by joining the elite club of lunar landers. After their successful missions, India and Japan could claim to be global space players.
And a country with a successful space industry can give the economy a major boost through jobs and innovation.
But the moon race offers an even bigger prize: resources.
Although the lunar terrain looks quite barren, it contains minerals including rare earths, metals like iron and titanium – as well as helium, which is used in everything from superconductors to medical devices.
Estimates of the value of all this vary enormously, from billions to trillions. So it’s easy to understand why some see the moon as a place to make a lot of money. However, it is also important to note that this would be a very long-term investment – and the technology needed to extract and return these lunar resources is still a long way off.
In 1979, an international treaty declared that no state or organization could claim ownership of the resources there. But it was not popular: only 17 countries are involved, and this does not include countries that have been to the moon, including the US.
In fact, the US passed a law in 2015 that allows its citizens and industries to extract, use and sell space materials.
“This caused enormous consternation among the international community,” Michelle Hanlon told me. “But others slowly followed suit with similar national laws.” These include Luxembourg, the UAE, Japan and India.
The resource possibly most in demand is surprising: water.
“When the first moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts were analyzed, they were believed to be completely dry,” explains Sara Russell, professor of planetary sciences at the Natural History Museum.
“But then a revolution of sorts happened about ten years ago and we discovered that it had tiny traces of water trapped in phosphate crystals.”
And at the moon’s poles, she says, there’s even more: the water ice reserves are frozen in permanently shadowed craters.
Future visitors could use the water for drinking, it could be used to generate oxygen and astronauts could even use it to make rocket fuel, by splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen, taking them from the moon to Mars and beyond can travel.
The US is now trying to establish a new set of guiding principles around lunar exploration and exploitation. The so-called Artemis Accords state that the extraction and use of resources on the moon must be done in a manner consistent with the Outer Space Treaty, although it states that some new rules may be needed.
To date, more than forty countries have signed these non-binding agreements, but China is notably missing from the list. And some argue that new rules for lunar exploration should not be led by any individual country.
“This should actually be done through the United Nations, because it affects all countries,” says Sa’id Mohetar.
But access to resources could also cause a new clash.
While there is plenty of space on the moon, areas close to ice-filled craters are prime lunar real estate. So what happens if everyone wants the same place for their future base? And once a country has set one up, what’s to stop another country from establishing its base a little too close?
“I think there’s an interesting analogy with Antarctica,” says Jill Stuart, a space policy and law researcher at the London School of Economics. “We will probably see research bases set up on the moon like on the continent.”
But specific decisions about a new moon base, such as whether it covers a few square kilometers or a few hundred, could come down to whoever gets there first.
“There will definitely be a first-mover advantage,” says Jill Stuart.
“So if you can get there first and set up camp, you can determine the size of your exclusion zone. It doesn’t mean that you own that land, but that you can sit on that spot.”
At this point, the first settlers will likely be the US or China, adding a new layer of rivalry to the already tense relationship. And they will probably set the standard; the rules set by whoever gets there first may end up being the rules that last over time.
If this all sounds a bit ad hoc, some space experts I’ve spoken to think it’s unlikely we’ll see another major international space treaty. It is more likely that the do’s and don’ts of lunar exploration will be established with memoranda of understanding or new codes of conduct.
Much is at stake. The moon is our constant companion as we watch it wax and wane through its different phases as it glows brightly in the sky.
But as this new space race gets underway, we need to start thinking about what kind of place we want it to be — and whether it risks becoming an environment where very Earth-like rivalries are played out.
BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analyzes and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and in-depth reporting on the biggest issues to help you understand a complex world. And we’ll also be presenting thought-provoking content from BBC Sounds and iPlayer. We start small but think big, and we want to know what you think. You can send us your feedback by clicking the button below.
InDepth is the new home for the best analysis from BBC News. Tell us what you think.