Mikhail Kotov — about what is on the moon and who pursues what goals in its developmentAt the very beginning of 2023, Politico published an interview with the head of NASA, Bill Nelson, in which he stated that, they say, in the very near future, China may try to occupy the most resource-rich areas of the Moon and prevent the United States from reaching them.
"It's a fact: we're in a space race,— Nelson said. — And it's true that we'd better make sure that they don't get to some place on the moon under the guise of scientific research. And it is possible that they will say: "Stay away, we are here, this is our territory."
There — I don't know where, then — I don't know what
That is, the head of NASA accuses the PRC that under the guise of scientific research, an Asian country will try to stake out and seize part of the lunar territory? And the main goal across the ocean is called the possibility of geological development of the Moon... Personally, I see this as the first (and main) problem.
So far, no unique and potentially profitable mining sites have been found on the moon. Judging by the soil delivered to Earth, the basis of the lunar regolith is oxides — the most common of which is silicon dioxide. Actually, this same substance is the main component of almost all terrestrial rocks. Yes, the lunar soil is not fundamentally different from the earth.
Of course, water in the form of ice has been found on the Moon, there are metals — aluminum, iron, titanium. Thus, there are elements on the Moon that will help to master the Earth's natural satellite, but nothing more. So far, geologists have not announced something so outstanding that would promise great economic profit and what is critically lacking on Earth.
Even the much-discussed lunar helium-3, which in the distant future has prospects of becoming a really important fuel for thermonuclear power plants, does not have clear deposits. The possibility of its extraction is extremely complicated by the fact that the element is strongly dispersed in the ground. The content of helium-3 in regolith is approximately 1 g per 100 tons, therefore, for the extraction of a ton of this isotope, at least 100 million tons of soil should be processed on site. With the technologies that exist today, this is almost impossible. Of course, we can say that development does not stand still, but it is much easier to obtain this isotope of helium during the decay of artificially obtained tritium — as it is done now on Earth.
I see the second discrepancy in Nelson's words with reality in the fact that China (as well as Russia) has long and consistently promoted the need to create a new bill within the framework of the UN regulating scientific lunar activities. Alas, but the " Agreement on the activities of states on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies ", concluded within the framework of the UN on December 18, 1979, has not been widely disseminated — the same States have not signed it. A significant role is played only by the " Treaty on the Principles of the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" of 1967 (aka the "Outer Space Treaty", which does not provide for any commercial use of space bodies). At the same time, the positions of China and Russia are very clear and directed in the same key — the basis of space exploration should be scientific activity.
The value of the Moon today, in addition to scientific discoveries, is also represented in the possibility of creating farms for orbital stations there and putting them into orbit without bulky rockets, using the Earth's natural satellite as a refueling for interplanetary missions.
Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said after the publication of Nelson's interview in Politico that "some American officials speak irresponsibly in order to distort China's normal and legitimate space activities." "Outer space is not a battlefield. The exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes is a common cause of humanity, and it should benefit everyone," the representative of China stressed.
Psychological projection?
In psychology, there is such a mechanism of psychological protection as projection. This is when the inner is mistakenly perceived as coming from the outside. That is, a person attributes his own thoughts, feelings, motives to others, and often unconsciously. In this sense, I see a direct similarity with the situation described in this text — is the head of NASA projecting his plans to China?
Over the past few years, it has been the United States that has been promoting the "Artemis Agreements" — an international agreement between the governments of the countries participating in the Artemis program to land a man on the moon. The document regulates the principles of cooperation and civil activities for the exploration and use of the Moon, Mars, comets and asteroids for peaceful purposes. The participating countries of this program are: USA, Australia, Great Britain, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, UAE, Japan, Ukraine, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Poland, Mexico, Israel, Romania, Bahrain, Singapore, Colombia, France and Saudi Arabia. In general, the principles of this document are based on the "Space Treaty", except, perhaps, the economic part — the main essence of the "Artemis Agreements" is the possibility of conducting commercial activities for the extraction, processing and sale of minerals and space objects. Moreover, the United States is actively working on the "Artemis Agreements" bypassing the UN, apparently not wanting public discussions of this document.
It turns out that the "Artemis Agreements", albeit in a framework form, represent a rather serious mine, located under the still upcoming relations of the terrestrial states on the Moon. For example, according to this document, a company or a participating state can probably start developing a lunar deposit, establish protection from competitors in the territory for production. In my opinion, this is exactly the approach that Bill Nelson described in an interview, only for some reason attributing the actions to China. Potentially, such a strategy will cause conflicts and lead to the division of the Moon into areas controlled by different countries and companies, mostly, I think, still by right of force.
Give me some money
In fact, in my opinion, the real reason for both the creation of the Artemis Agreements and Bill Nelson's interview for Politico is very simple — NASA needs more money, both from government and commercial sources.
After all, what is essentially the "Artemis Agreement" — an attempt to find external sources of financing, both among other states and among private companies. The proposal to invest in the Artemis space program in order to get the opportunity to earn money on the exploration of the Moon in the future. In principle, the goal is logical and correct — how else to force, for example, private business to invest in space programs? Only with the promise of big profits in the future. On the other hand, it can lead to a situation of the Wild West and a "gold rush" with massive self-seizure of territories, redistribution of business and conflicts on this ground.
The idea of China as a kind of "terrible villain" is more aimed at increasing budgets on the part of the state. Here, apparently, a direct calculation on the fright of congressmen.
Actually, the US Department of Defense has been doing this for many years. Right before the budget allocation, many articles appear in the press about the danger from, in particular, China or Russia. The solution is usually very simple — the allocation of additional funding. NASA is following the same well-trodden path. And this is despite the fact that the budget of the United States Space Agency for 2023 will be almost $25.5 billion . This is almost $1.5 billion more than in 2022, but $527 million less than NASA requested. At the same time, this amount is several times more than that of China, the European Union and Russia for space research. In addition, it is worth considering that $25.5 billion is the budget of NASA alone, and there is also the US space force. According to experts, in general, the state budget for activities in the space sector is about $61.9 billion, China has $11.94 billion, about $10 billion is the combined budget of the European Union and $3.5 billion is the total state spending on space in Russia.
Waiting for common sense
Alas, if everything goes the same way as it is now, then in the near future, instead of scientific research and lunar bases aimed at this, where international teams of scientists work, humanity can get the Moon divided into separate territories controlled by large corporations and states. The natural satellite of the Earth will become a place where the right of the strong and the law of the frontier operate.
Yes, this will contribute to the fact that the lunar expansion will cease to be something metaphorical and distant — it will take place, and perhaps even faster than expected. However, is this the kind of cosmic future humanity wants (and needs)?
