The Moon as a New Political Frontier

We’re going back to the moon. One year from now, humanity will be within lunar orbit for the first time since the famous Apollo missions half a century ago. NASA’s Artemis II is set to complete a lunar orbit in November 2024, a ten-day voyage that will test new launching and spacecraft technology. The spacecraft will be manned by four people, including the first woman, person of color, and non-American to leave Earth’s orbit. Although these are important accomplishments, little else stands out about Artemis II, or even Artemis III, NASA’s future mission to land astronauts on the lunar surface. After all, twenty-four people have already visited the moon in a less technologically advanced world. So why are we repeating history?

Although the Cold War-era Space Race has long concluded, development and exploration of space has never slowed down. Astronauts have visited space every year since 1961, satellite proliferation continues, and plans to visit or even colonize Mars are constantly discussed by corporations and governments alike. This last goal is the aim behind the Artemis Program, a three-part mission announced by NASA in 2017, led by the United States and other partnering governments. Artemis II is the intermediate phase between the uncrewed flight test of NASA’s launch system, Artemis I, and future crewed missions to land mankind back on the lunar surface to conduct research and establish a long-term presence, Artemis III. According to NASA, the moon isn’t a step backwards, but rather the future research and physical launchpad for missions to Mars and other areas of space.

America isn’t the only country eyeing a return to the moon. India’s uncrewed Chandrayaan-3 rover landed on the lunar surface in August, and Japan’s SLIM mission is set to follow in January. Israel, Korea, and Russia also have active moon exploration programs. Most significantly, China’s Chang’e missions have already seen the nation become the first to send a rover to the far side of the moon in 2019, and they plan to return the first-ever samples from that little-explored region next year. Given these rival advances, it appears that NASA’s Artemis Program is not only determined to pioneer lunar ambitions, but also to avoid being the only power left behind. 

America’s renewed interest in visiting the moon began nearly two decades ago with George W. Bush. On January 15th, 2004, the former president delivered a speech seeking $1 billion more in NASA funding for a myriad of space ambitions, including a return to the lunar surface to mine for resources and develop an intermediate launching station for further deep-space exploration. This wasn’t the first time American leaders had expressed interest in the moon. In fact, Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, had attempted a similar plan during his presidency, but was unsuccessful due to little interest or funding. This time would be different. The younger Bush insisted the price tag would be well worth the scientific advancements, resource wealth, and improved national spirit that would come from his space policy: an investment that would “be repaid many times over” and welcome collaboration with similarly minded nations. Other governments took notice, with China approving their own lunar exploration program that same month. Since Bush’s declaration, NASA has been taking steps towards a return to the Moon, with Congress approving the proposed space exploration budget and subsequent presidential administrations reaffirming the moon as a priority in their respective space policies, with some adjustments. That said, Bush’s interest in returning to the moon was not universally praised. Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, stated in 2003 that “a moon shot alone seems more like reaching for past glory than striving for new triumphs.” Instead he proposed a separate orbiting launchpad for missions to deep space. Considering those doubts, how has lunar progress, and Bush’s promise of a repaid investment held up with the present-day Artemis Program?

Whether the Moon is used for spacecraft launching, resource extraction, scientific research, or even tourism is a question best answered by an international body, or at least cooperating powers.

As mentioned, the Artemis Program views the moon not as a final destination, but a means for research, resources, and a launchpad for loftier goals, namely Mars and deeper space exploration. Overall, commercial exploitation of the moon remains a distant goal. Although China may return far-side samples from the moon next year, the Science and Technology Policy Institute finds little indication that extraction of water or minerals to support manned-missions will be possible in the next several years, let alone any profitable, large-scale mining. Whether America or other nation’s technological developments on the moon are “paying off” in scientific research seems a question too early to answer, as lunar missions overall are still in their trial phases and are not guaranteed successes. This can be seen with the Luna 25 accident, Russia’s recent attempt to return to the Moon that resulted in their spacecraft crashing into the lunar surface. In contrast, NASA’s attempts have fared better — Artemis I successfully completed its 25.5 day mission orbiting around the moon a year ago, which proved the readiness of the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System (SLS) for the subsequent Artemis missions. Still, one mission isn’t enough to draw a definitive conclusion on whether Artemis has paid off. While scientific progress continues, the political norms and conflicts developing alongside it give Bush’s description of lunar exploration as an “investment” a new and equally important meaning for America’s success in outer space.

Along with the Artemis Program came the Artemis Accords in 2020, a non-binding multilateral agreement between the United States government and thirty-one other governments. The Artemis Accords reaffirm compliance with previous UN guidelines for space, and outline principles for signatories to abide by. Signing the Accords is a prerequisite for interested nations to participate in the Artemis Program, and signals an attempt to codify some space norms into law. Key provisions include a commitment to scientific transparency, peaceful exploration, and an aim to keep resource extraction and lunar infrastructure sustainable and collaborative. Unsurprisingly, the list of signatories consists of mostly Western governments and their allies, with neither Russia or China included. In fact, the 2011 Wolf Amendment prohibits NASA from cooperating with the Chinese government without FBI approval. China and Russia have their own political ambitions in space, most significantly, the International Lunar Research Station, a prospective multi-purpose research facility planned for either the lunar surface or orbit in the 2030s. This will undoubtedly come with its own expectations for other governments interested in participating, which includes nations such as Pakistan, Venezuela, and as of last month, Belarus. The Artemis Accords have also gained new signatories recently, with the addition of India back in June drawing significant attention, considering the nation’s aforementioned success by already landing a rover on the moon. As both the American and Chinese lunar projects continue to gain more partners, it is safe to say that global political interest in returning to the moon will only grow. 

It appears NASA’s Artemis Program is not only determined to pioneer lunar ambitions, but also to not be the only power left behind.

With several nations now invested in lunar programs, political blocs are forming around the two world superpowers’ legal, scientific, and commercial goals.  These developments have restored the moon’s status as a new frontier, as opposed to the step backward that some critics previously labeled it as. But while the prospect of greater scientific knowledge is alluring, with programs like Artemis and the International Lunar Research Station serving that purpose, to what degree do these institutions still serve as extensions of ongoing issues down on Earth? This is not to lead into any sort of argument that the scientific research in outer space is irrelevant, inapplicable, or frivolous to earthly concerns. In fact, NASA is a leader in climate research that directly impacts our understanding of human-induced climate change, necessary for policy that adapts to or fights climate-related issues. Rather, it is a question of how unique space-related challenges are from Earthly issues, and a call to envision the moon as a new frontier for international norms and institutions. The Artemis Accords might be doing exactly that: laying out a framework for a collaborative future on the moon. But the Accords could also be viewed as Western-centric, dangerously divisive, or out of step with modernized international norms, as reported by law professor Rossana Deplano. Regardless, the lack of major power signatories to the Accords, like China and Russia, and America’s position as the main leader of the Accords do not signify a neutral or cooperative global mindset when it comes to the future of space exploration. Which players are more at fault for creating a competitive atmosphere is a matter of opinion, but the need to address it remains unless we seek another space race.

Rather, it is a question of how unique space-related challenges are from Earthly issues, and a call to envision the Moon as a new frontier for international norms and institutions.

International governing bodies have always had difficulty enforcing law and mediating between actors on Earth, and the same anarchical principles make this just as difficult on the moon. The difference is in the moon’s relatively clean slate: besides an American flag and a few astronaut footprints, the opportunity for truly neutral or globally owned land still exists in a unique way. Whether it is used for spacecraft launching, resource extraction, scientific research, or even tourism is a question best answered by an international body, or at least cooperating powers. How this can be accomplished is no easy question, but it is important to think about as nations rush to launch new attempts at the moon. Mankind’s return to the moon may repeat history, but the lunar surface can clearly serve as a launchpad for groundbreaking political developments, just as it has with scientific discoveries. 

Irene Herrmann ‘27 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at herrmann@wustl.edu.