#2 - Artemis, the Moon, and the Deep Seabed
Artemis, the Moon, and the Deep Seabed
Happy new year and welcome to the second issue of “Camp of the Children”. I’m honoured that you have given me the privilege of addressing you directly in your inbox -- whereas mine is a minefield of unopened emails and thousands of messages reaching back years, some of yours, I would bet, are pristine. Sorry for messing it up with this weekly despatch.
As always, please reach out by emailing me if you’d like to chat, or if you have any feedback.
The Artemis Program
“An artificially colored mosaic constructed from a series of 53 images taken through three spectral filters by Galileo’s imaging system as the spacecraft flew over the northern regions of the Moon on 7 December 1992. The colors indicate different materials.” (Wikipedia)
This week, we consider lunar exploration and the issues that surrounding economic activity on the Moon. Up first: NASA’s Artemis program, which has the lofty goal of returning human beings to the surface of the Moon by 2024:
With the Artemis program, NASA will land the first woman and next man on the Moon by 2024, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with our commercial and international partners and establish sustainable exploration by 2028. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap – sending astronauts to Mars.
There are many juicy technical and scientific issues surrounding the mission, but at the outset, I just wanted to convey some of the excitement I felt when I realised that there were really people out there thinking about how to get people to Mars, not just as a pipe dream, but taking concrete steps today so that such an achievement will be possible in the next few decades.
One step before that, however, is also the idea that mankind will be going to the Moon in order to do something, not just conduct scientific experiments and learn more about the Moon, as important as those things are. As NASA’s website puts it, “We’re going forward to the Moon to stay.” In particular, NASA aims to organise “more effectively government, commercial and international efforts to develop a permanent presence off Earth that generates new markets and opportunities, both scientific and economic” (emphasis added).
I recommend this video by Kurzgesagt to experience some of that wonder and to learn about some of the challenges about setting up a Moon base.
The regulation of lunar activity
But pointing somewhat in a different direction are the international treaties that govern the use of space and bodies in space. Most prominent among those instruments is the so-called Outer Space Treaty, or the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (see Wikipedia). As of today, there are 109 parties to the treaty, including the United States of America.
While many of the concerns of the Outer Space Treaty arose in the tensions of the 1960s -- notably, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union were the ones who opened the treaty for signature -- there are some principles articulated in the Treaty that might be problematic for the commercial exploitation of lunar resources. Two key provisions are Articles I and II of the Treaty:
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind (Article I).
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 (Article II).
On the face of it, Article I restricts economic activity to those that can be carried out “for the benefit” of all countries. Article II would appear to prevent any State party to the Treaty from enforcing property or any other legal rights on the Moon. Both of these seem to hamper economic exploitation of the Moon, for example, lunar mining.
We might raise another issue here. Lunar resource exploitation would be an unprecedented step in the use of space. Yet, we have no idea what effect extensive mining on the Moon might be. I’m reminded of an episode in Rick and Morty where Jerry goes to Pluto and realises that the Plutonian aristocracy had been mining precious resources underground so extensively that Pluto had begun to shrink.
How should such activities be regulated in the face of great uncertainty over the impact of such activities on Earth? Will the tidal patterns change according to the mass of the Moon? Is there a risk that its orbit might be affected? Mankind has never been particularly good at predicting the effects of its activities, given the complexity of natural systems. But perhaps we have learned from our mistakes on this planet and won’t repeat them elsewhere in the solar system and beyond.
From the Moon to the Deep Seabed
From all the way up in space, we go down to the reaches of the deep seabed, to a place simply called the Area. In Part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), provision was made for an area of the seabed beyond the jurisdiction of any single State, ie the Area. The Area is governed by the International Seabed Authority (also known as the Authority).
While UNCLOS was being drafted, it was the expectation of many that the Area was the next frontier in mining and resource exploitation. Polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides, and ferromanganese crusts are some of the resources known to inhabit the deep seabed. The UNCLOS put in place detailed provisions to ensure that the exploitation of these resources could be regulated. While this newsletter isn’t the right place for a deep dive (pardon the pun) into the laws on this issue, I highlight all this because of its relevance to lunar exploration and exploitation.
As many people have noted through the years, the principles governing the Moon and the Area are very similar. Together with the regulations on the Antarctic and the Arctic, these international treaties have emphasised the “common heritage of mankind”, the idea that there are some shared resources beyond the claim of any individual State. But merely designating something as the “common heritage of mankind” is often not enough. This contested concept exists in a constellation of other contested concepts, like “sustainable development” and the “precautionary approach”. What exactly the “common heritage of mankind” means in the light of these other concepts is not very clear, especially when economic activity is involved.
On the issue of the deep seabed, I recommend this recent article from The Atlantic, “History’s Largest Mining Operation is About to Begin”. Through an exposition of recent efforts towards commercial mining in the Area, this article illustrates forcefully how organisations struggle to regulate economic activity in protected areas.
Status Board
Reading: About two hundred pages into The Rise of Endymion by Dan Simmons. Not yet as thrilling as the first three, but still very, very good. Unfortunately, since I’ve started a new job, my commute now involves less uninterrupted time on the train, so reading is slowing down.
Listening: John Gruber’s The Talk Show was one of my favourite discoveries of 2019. I’m now listening to his “Best of the Decade” episode with Rene Ritchie. Last week, I greatly enjoyed a lecture from Long Now: Conversations at the Interval by Adrienne Mayor, titled, “Gods and Robots: Ancient Dreams of Technology”, which traces ancient depictions of AI and how technology and tyranny have been intertwined.
Watching: Finished The Witcher (Netflix) last week. I absolutely loved it, having gone into it with no idea what the Witcher was about. On Youtube, I’ve fallen in love with Kurzgesagt, with videos on stellar engines, sky hooks, Dyson spheres, etc.