2022 - Year one of moon colonisation?

By Giacomo Valentini

2022 marks the launch of the operative phase of Artemis, the ambitious moon project by US space agency NASA in collaboration with European and other agencies. The goal is to return a human to the moon by mid-decade, followed by a permanent moon based by the end of the 2020s. The programme includes building an orbiting mini-space station in lunar orbit (the Gateway) to serve as a communication hub, science laboratory, short-term habitation module, and holding area for rovers and other robots. Artemis will rely on a complex of vehicles, including various types of launchers, spacecraft and moon rovers. The project is likely to raise tensions with the West’s traditional rivals - Russia and China. The risk is a push for militarisation of cislunar space, i.e. the area of space within the lunar orbit. 

The Artemis programme is very ambitious, and will rely heavily on international cooperation and private participation to produce viable results. The operational agreement among the US and the other Artemis partners would allow the project to set up bases closed to third parties. Observers have noted that is in probable violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which governs “the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” That Treaty stipulates in Article II that “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” 

It is thus not surprising that both Russia and China have expressed concern. While the US and partners might argue that occupation of the base does not imply automatic territorial claims on the lunar land on which it is built, others might see in it a clear attempt to build an exclusive exploitation zone, which runs against the spirit and letter of the treaty.

At stake are projects for future mining operations on the moon. The Outer Space Treaty was concluded in the middle of the Cold War, and its provisions on the exploitation of lunar resources (mining or other) are not sufficiently developed to provide guidance in an age when private mining operations are becoming a realistic prospect. Looked at with that in mind, the US moon base can be seen as setting a dangerous precedent for sectioning off the moon in exploitation zones. China and Russia have argued that state or private entities that exploit lunar resources ought to share the gains with the rest of the world’s countries.  

Chinese media sources have recently reported that their government has accelerated plans for lunar exploration, and will now set up an unmanned lunar research station, in cooperation with Russia, by 2027 – eight years earlier than had been announced earlier. In May 2021 the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding, in which they agreed to jointly develop a moon base with a supporting orbiting station, all for the peaceful exploration and use of space “for all of mankind”. Russia has also announced it will be leaving the International Space Station in 2025, and indicated it intends to intensify cooperation with China on space exploration.

This realignment of space exploration programmes might suggest that a bipolar international space exploration regime might be emerging, with the US, Europe, Japan and allies on one side, and China, Russia and their allies on the other. This, however, is not likely to last. The current Russia-China honeymoon is closely related to the personalities of the leaders of those two countries. Putin and Xi Jin Ping are said to have forged a strong personal relationship, and both have interest in showing unity against the US and more generally the “West”. Space programmers span decades, overrunning even the most long-lasting rulers. And while Russia and China might currently have complementary skills - with Russia having the necessary space experience and knowledge base and China mastering advanced computing including AI, which could contribute significantly to a future moon base - over time the Chinese are likely to no longer need Russian help, as they will develop in-house space capacities. And there is an undoubted attractiveness for everybody in exchanging knowledge with many different international partners.

But in the short term, Russia and China will share concern about the US advantage in space and its moon plans. If, as seems likely, US companies announce the start of lunar mining operations, the US government would have the burden of ensuring their safety, against the complaints of Russia and China. In such a scenario, militarisation might escalate fast.

It is hard to emphasise enough the technical complexity of establishing a moon base supported by an orbiting station around our satellite. While the International Space Station is orbiting the Earth at a height of 420 kilometres, the moon is almost 400,000 kilometres from Earth, and the Earth’s magnetic field does not shield it from cosmic radiation. Compared to the ISS, moon-based equipment will have to be designed to operate in that more hostile environment, and humans will be at risk of radiation poisoning if not properly protected. In addition, a moon base will require a complex set of different space vehicles, including ones that will exclusively shuttle between the moon’s surface and the orbiting base. If, as NASA claims, the moon base and its orbiting station are to also serve to support a mission to Mars, further rockets, spacecraft and related hardware will need to be built. One might calculate that America’s current superiority in space will give it an unstoppable edge over any adversary, and that in the end everybody will have to accept the US approach to moon settlement as a fait accompli given America’s head start. 

But that discounts the ability of a Russia-China partnership to quickly catch up. All Russia and China would need to do is develop enough capacity to pose a threat to the security of US orbiting assets. Developing cislunar abilities would giva America’s two rivals the ability to strike US earth-orbiting satellites “from above”, rather than rely solely on rockets fired from Earth. 

So much is at stake that the best course of action for all parties should be to adopt a new Moon exploration Treaty, one that promotes peaceful cooperation and fair exploitation of any resources our satellite might have to offer. But that does not appear to be likely in the near term.