Australia, Britain sign up to NASA’s Artemis treaty on moon exploration

National space agencies have joined an international group led by NASA in signing new accords governing the exploration of the moon.

A NASA picture taken on July 20, 1969, shows astronaut Buzz Aldrin saluting the US flag on the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 lunar mission. Picture: AFP/Getty Images

National space agencies have joined an international group led by NASA in signing new accords governing the exploration of the moon.

It has done so, however, despite the notable absence of Russia and China and amid accu­sations that it is engaging in a lunar land grab.

When Neil Armstrong slipped the surly bonds of Earth to walk on the moon in 1969, the event briefly united the world in a single ­romantic, transcendent moment.

Or, almost all the world. Some have long lamented that outer space requires a framework for the interoperability of standards, resource extraction protocols and some understanding of territorial rights.

That is what the Artemis ­accords, signed on Tuesday by the US, Britain, Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy and the UAE, are intended to partially achieve.

As NASA plans to return to the moon this decade, and ultimately set up permanent bases, the ­accords provide a framework for the civil exploration of space — dictating that signatories keep each other informed of activities, use compatible systems, provide emergency assistance to each other, and also allowing them to mine for resources.

But the accords were signed without the endorsement of two of the nations most likely to engage in that exploration. They also, some legal experts have claimed, risk overriding a fragile consensus governing activities in space, in an attempt to make money from it.

Russia, although a partner of NASA on the International Space Station, did not sign. And the US congress in 2011 banned NASA from working with China.

Most of the rules governing the use of space are based on a document signed in the 1960s known as the Outer Space Treaty. Created at the height of the Cold War, its chief purpose was to prevent the militarisation of space.

It is now viewed as dangerously out of date, but it has been impossible to get a consensus to update it. The Artemis accords are in one sense an attempt to do so unilaterally.

Arfan Chaudhry, head of international policy at the UK Space Agency, described the accords as “almost like rules for the road”, adding: “These are key principles for devising a sustainable presence on the moon while preparing for onward human missions to Mars.

“What we are talking about is a safe, transparent and prosperous route for developing outer space. It’s about the practical aspects:­ ­ensuring the safety of operations, reducing uncertainty, providing clarity.”

Of particular concern to China are the articles allowing for resource extraction and those creating “safety zones”. These are defined as areas around national moon bases that other nations are asked to “respect” in order to “prevent harmful interference”.

Joanne Gabrynowicz, editor-in-chief emerita of the Journal of Space Law, said other countries were right to consider these a bit dubious.

“The Outer Space Treaty says you can’t appropriate land by claim, use, occupation or any other means. A safety zone is ­appropriation by other means,” she said.

“Japan is a major spacefaring nation. If Japan signs the accords, it gives the agreement weight it wouldn’t otherwise have.

“If others are on board, it’s also going to give the agreement weight — that’s how international law develops. It’s what nations do and say.

“This is the challenge of international law in general, whether space, maritime or high seas. We have a lot of piracy on the high seas, although it is meant to be a commons.”

The Times