The Moon, Earth’s clingy best friend that won’t leave our side, has been the topic of discussion since the first days of space travel. Missions have been planned there, our rovers patrol it, and we’ve even stuck a flag its ground.
But why do we bother? Nearly 400,000km away, the Moon is a long commute away from Earth, not to mention the long list of factors that make it a terrible place for us to inhabit (looking at you, solar radiation).
Instead, the Moon offers other benefits. A mostly untouched planet, it is perfect for planetary research, scientific experiments and arguably most importantly, the mining of precious resources.
Where there is supply, there is demand and that means plenty of people want to get to the Moon first. So that raises one very important question: who does the Moon belong to? We spoke to AC Grayling, a philosopher and author of the new book Who Owns The Moon to find out.
SF: Why are we interested in getting to the Moon and will it happen?
ACG: It's a much better place to mine than on Earth since we've done so much damage here already and the Moon is full of resources.
undefined
Some say it isn't practical. But the rate of technological change is so fast that all the problems will most likely be sorted very soon. A huge amount of money is being invested in this as well. People don't put that kind of money into things unless they think they're going to get a massive return.
The Moon has key resources, like helium-3 which could be used for clean nuclear fusion. Some don't think robot bases would even be able to strip-mine the surface of the Moon in sufficient quantities to get to these resources.
If there are big profits to be made, it can lead to conflict. And that's the big problem here.
SF: So who actually owns the Moon?
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty agreed by the United Nations says no militarization of the Moon and no sovereignty or ownership claims. This is because the Moon doesn't belong to anybody, which really means it belongs to everybody.
It does say that the Moon is not currently occupied by any living creatures and therefore, it's kind of open season. This has fired an implicit starting gun for whoever can develop the technology fastest.
The UN tried to firm things up a little bit in 1979. But there's no binding treaty that regulates or controls what would happen if guidance was broken and there are no space courts to uphold anything.
The Moon sits up there in space with a huge source of mineral resources, especially the possibility of helium 3 which is very rare on Earth and which is already being priced in at about $4bn (£3.1bn) a ton or $2,000 (£1500) a litre.
This means there is a risk of conflict which wouldn't be restricted to space. It seems to me that if we pass the current issues of climate change and the wars we are fighting on Earth, the next big problem will be wars fought in space.
What is the next step? Will legislation be tightened?
They should tighten it, but it is hard because there are multiple agencies for space. There is China and Russia with plans to push an orbital space station around the Moon. And there's India, which is doing it cheaper than anybody else.
And then, of course, there is the NASA-led Artemis. This is a group of about 36 nations, of which the UK is a part. The Artemis Accords is a code of conduct for how to behave in space. These accords are a preemptive attempt to stop the UN from stepping in, a way of saying 'Hey, we can self-regulate – we're all aligned on our goals so no international treaty is needed!'
This feels like history repeating itself because one side is the NASA-led Artemis and China alongside Russia on the other side. This is a reprise of the east/west Cold War standoff, which could so easily go wrong.
Can history hint at what might happen?
There are a couple of key moments that offer insight. The first is the Antarctic Treaty of 1961.
The aim was to stop all of the sovereignty claims from different countries over the Antarctic. The treaty said nobody was to make any new sovereignty claims. There is no militarisation, no weapons, no nuclear testing in the Antarctic and it is to be kept as a place of peace and progress in scientific research.
However, while it stands as a good example of how one of these treaties can go well, the treaty is fraying at the edges. One reason is that China and Russia, who are partners in the treaty, have blocked efforts to extend the terms to cover the Southern Ocean around the Antarctic. So some areas are being very seriously overfished, but the treaty only applies to the continent.
The other thing is that China, which now has five research stations up in the Antarctic, has said the world should recognize what it calls 'the special interest zone' around its research stations. They're starting to claim ownership of bits of the Antarctic.
Also, the limit on mining in the region ends in 2048. When that ends, countries are going to want sudden sovereignty in that area. That is something you can apply to the Moon. If you establish a base, even a robot-controlled one, you wouldn't want anybody else anywhere nearby because they might interfere or damage it.
So there will be a demand for exclusion zones and that is the first step to ownership. Also, the United Nations has been trying since the 1950s to get a convention on the law of the sea. This would be to stop and regulate the mining of the deep seabed where there are very valuable mineral resources.
Given that the open oceans belong to everybody, it is the same as the Moon. If nations have managed to get a law over the Moon or an international treaty about space, the precedent would be that any profits accruing from that activity would be shared around the Earth with countries that don't have a space agency. And that is something that certain private businesses and countries won't want.
That is another alarm bell because it would be incredibly hard for the UN to get any kind of international agreement about how space works, especially in a way that makes the Moon a shared property.
Is there an argument for leaving the Moon alone?
Not really. The Moon is pretty big and bare with no life on it, so the environmental concern is lower than on Earth. In fact, it is probably better to do it there than here.
It's true there's already quite a lot of litter on the Moon – crashed lunar modules and bits of stray equipment. Some people are horrified by all of this, but the Moon is huge and completely derelict – this rubbish makes up the tiniest percentage of the surface.
What is the next step after the Moon?
The idea of a lunar orbital station, combined with the fact that water on the Moon can be converted into rocket fuel by separating hydrogen and oxygen, makes the Moon the first step in the exploration of Mars.
If you look at the history of colonization on Earth, ultimately colonies want to assert their independence. That means we've got a kind of HG Wells War of the World situation brewing up in several centuries, when Mars and the Moon colonies become independent of Earth just like individual countries.
If what happens out in space is not based on the kinds of principles that we would ideally like to see operating on Earth – like human rights, justice and social inclusion – then the future will be bright. But if instead it's all corporations and a profit-forward mentality then the future of humanity in space will look rather different from what our aspirations look like on Earth.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity
About our expert, AC Grayling
AC Grayling is a philosopher and author of the new book Who Owns the Moon. He is the founder of the New College Of the Humanities and a contributor to the Literary Review, Observer and New Statesmen.
Read more:
