How India’s lunar landing shapes future of space exploration, geopolitics — an expert explains

Representative image: iStock

As the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scripted history with the successful landing of Chandrayaan-3 near the lunar south pole, Down To Earth spoke to Ranjana Kaul, partner at Dua Associates, a firm specialising in the international law of outer space.

She explained the significance of India’s landing, geopolitics and the future of space exploration. Edited excerpts:

Rohini Krishnamurthy (RKM): ISRO touched down near the South Pole. What does this mean for India and does it change India’s standing in the Artemis Accord, which it has recently joined?

 

Ranjana Kaul (RK): Will Artemis impact our lunar programme or space programme per se? The answer is no. It will not.

We know that after having signed the accords in June 2023, ISRO landed Chandrayaan-3 near the lunar south pole in August 2023. In short, nothing restricts India from advancing its own space ambitions, nor do the Artemis Accords contain any such restriction.

The second part of your question is the most important — yes, there is no doubt that Chandrayaan-3 has strengthened India’s standing as a space-faring nation.

India is the second Asian country to have achieved this complex mission. Does August 2023 make a difference? 

It is for the leadership to determine whether India will be involved internationally in matters related to space governance and planetary resources. This is a very important juncture in time, which may determine the future of outer space.

So, let me answer your question about India’s standing in the Artemis Accord in two parts.

First — on the operational side — the Accords state that there will be implementation agreements and cooperation agreements unfolding in the coming days.

So, what are the prospects for ISRO engagement in Artemis? How much will we do it together with other partners? How much by ISRO alone? And how much will we do it together with the US? As far as I can figure out, these are very early days and specifics in this regard are not available in the public domain yet.

Second — on the management and regulatory side — It is for our leadership to decide on the nature and scope of India’s role in this extremely critical matter, considering the interest of all countries, particularly those not with advanced space programmes.

RKM: What does future space exploration look like? 

RK: The entire arrangement of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 established principles to govern the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies.

So, of course, space powers have been undertaking space exploration and deep space scientific missions ever since the start of the Space Age. These will carry on as usual, with international participation in scientific space missions, also enabling countries to include their payloads on the launch vehicle.  

The new vertical that has been added in the 21st century is the second phase of exploratory missions to the Moon, asteroids. The US Artemis and the Chinese-Russian International Lunar Research Station project are part of that narrative. India, Japan and some other countries also have lunar ambitions.

We have to understand that 21st century lunar missions have not come out of a vacuum. The endeavours of the human species beyond Earth’s orbit have been in the making for the last 59 years — from 1959, when the USSR (Russia) sent the first lunar mission, which crash landed, to August 2023, when India landed near the south pole. 

We may soon have Japan, and, I do very much hope for their success as the fifth country to land successfully on the near the south lunar pole.

To date, there have been 11 countries, including international organisations, that have undertaken these sorts of lunar missions. Now, whether it is a probe, an orbiter, a lander, or simply a flyby, the fact is that only four countries have successfully landed their lander and rover on the lunar surface. Of these, the US is the only country that has landed humans on the Moon.

Countries are already engaged in scientific missions to identify specific mineral resources on the Moon. The second stage will be to determine specific locations and potential of the mineral resources.

Just like on Earth, before starting commercial mining operations, companies will conduct surveys and undertake prospecting to determine location and commercial potential. This normally involves drilling at identified locations to confirm adequate deposits.

Then, the company will look at the viability. Apart from all that, in the case of lunar resources, there will be the question of how to return the extracted resources back to the Earth.

Could the extracted resources be first converted or processed on the Moon itself before being taken to terrestrial markets? What is the demand in the terrestrial markets? How much investment would be required and for how long? What might be the rate of return on investment? 

RKM: We have seen two groups: One is the countries that are signatories of the Artemis Accord and then you have Russia and China forging their own agreement. What does this mean?

RK: A few months after the Artemis Accords, China-Russia announced their International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) project, which intends to set up a lunar base near the south pole of the Moon.

The purpose of the ILRS is reconnaissance, construction and utilisation. Recently, South Africa has signed as a participant in ILRS.

However, there is no specific information regarding China’s and Russia’s views on space resource utilisation or related to other important aspects.

In this context, it should also be noted that the US Artemis Program document is also not available in the public domain, so we do not know the details. The accords documents are limited to the multilateral arrangements guiding participating countries in advancing the Artemis Program. 

The question is, how will the rival super-space powers progress their ambitions? The point is that there are potential flash points for conflict, not in the least because both states have announced the lunar south side as their location of choice for undertaking activities related to resource utilisation. And, yes, the US and China-Russia are rivals.

Now, if you take India’s position, what will the country do between the two? We now have a deep engagement with the US. And we have always had a deep engagement and a supporting relationship with Russia.

There was an effort at a point in time for India and China to undertake some collaborative space-linked work, but that didn’t happen because of the geopolitics here on our borders.

How can we balance the competing interests — under the mandate of the Outer Space Treaty, which grants freedom of access to all parties for safe and unimpeded access into outer space — including the Moon and the celestial bodies? That is where leadership will come in. So, the question is, who will be the leader? How can the leaders of the leading powers get together?

RKM: The Outer Space Treaty prevents national appropriation. So how would mineral exploration happen without nations sort of segregating how much they’re going to mine?

You are right. Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty clearly prohibits national appropriation by claims of sovereignty, by means of occupation or use or by any other means.

Therefore, the question to ask is whether there is a way in which Article 2 could be interpreted to make it capable of distinguishing the non-appropriation of the lunar or celestial territory. 

If yes, do the Outer Space Treaty provisions inherently provide necessary checks and balances such that the interest and benefit of all countries is assured as mandated by the treaty? Or is there a requirement for a new international treaty specifically for space resource management, regulation and related aspects? 

Basically, it all boils down to the ownership of space resources. The US has rejected the interpretation of Article 2 as has been understood.

It has instead interpreted that the extraction of space resources is, in fact, consistent with the term “use” as stated in the provisions under Article 1.

Therefore, the US argues that the extraction, recovery and utilisation of space resources constitutes the use (utilisation) of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and, as such, does not come within the ambit of Article 2. This is the basis on which the Artemis Accords document is framed.

Specifically, Accords section 10, para 2 states that Signatories emphasise that the extraction and utilisation of space resources, including any recovery from the surface or subsurface of the Moon, Mars, comets, or asteroids, should be executed in a manner that complies with the Outer Space Treaty and in support of safe and sustainable space activities.

The Signatories affirm that the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty and other legal instruments relating to space resources should be consistent with that Treaty.

The fact is that by affixing their signatures to the Accords document, each one of the 30 signatories has confirmed their acceptance of the US interpretation of Article 2. This includes India.

Your question regarding the decision of how much of the lunar resources should be mined is of utmost importance. 

The question is, who will determine how much? It is not just the US; we know that China, Russia, India, Japan and several other countries may also have similar aspirations.   

We will recall that, just like on the Earth, mineral deposits on the Moon (indeed, all planetary resources) are also not renewable; like on the Earth, mining on the Moon will cause its own types of pollution.

Questions must also be asked whether those countries with superior technology and first mover advantage will derive benefits from the lunar resources to the detriment of others. There are so many more critical aspects to be considered. And there is always the possibility of conflict on the Moon, which must be avoided at all costs. 

Yet, lunar mining and long-term human habitation will result in new technologies, applications, products and services. Presently, outer space is supporting the global Space to Earth economy valued at US$ 564 billion in the second quarter of 2023. 

Still, there are red flags that we need to take note of. The question is —are the participating countries considering a long-term plan for regulating and managing activities on the Moon? Furthermore, since the US has interpreted Article 2 by relying on provisions under Article 1, what is the approach of the signatories regarding fulfilling the entire mandate of Article 1 in letter and spirit?  

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.