USA’s Artemis Accords

[selvaarchi]

Another article on the Artemis Accords by The Space Review.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4054/1

It was a signing ceremony for the Zoom era. On the screens of attendees of the virtual International Astronautical Congress October 13, as well as anyone who tuned in to NASA TV, was a three-by-three array of screens, a fancy version of video chats that have become commonplace. In each window, a government official put pen to paper; some matter-of-factly, others proudly showing off the document they signed.

[Jens]

One interesting question I think is why some of the Western European countries, notably France and Germany, have not joined. I presume that it's just a matter of timing, but also wonder if the historical rivalry between the US and Western Europe could have some connection.

[Jens]

One interesting question I think is why some of the Western European countries, notably France and Germany, have not joined. I presume that it's just a matter of timing, but also wonder if the historical rivalry between the US and Western Europe could have some connection.

Actually, answering my own question, this article implies that there may be opposition from inside the EU. But it just implies the possibility.

https://theconversation.com/artemis-...reement-148134

[Van Rijn]

One interesting question I think is why some of the Western European countries, notably France and Germany, have not joined. I presume that it's just a matter of timing, but also wonder if the historical rivalry between the US and Western Europe could have some connection.

One possible issue is that France signed the Moon treaty. That was far more restrictive than the Outer Space treaty and I have read it could disallow acceptance of the Artemis Accords. This could also affect the ESA.

Personal note: I was a member of the (now defunct) L5 Society when it was looking like the US might sign the Moon treaty and we had an organized effort to lobby against it. The Moon treaty was getting almost no attention in Washington because it would have little practical effect for decades at least, but there was good reason to think it would effectively outlaw private property and commercial operations in space like asteroid or Moon mining. There was strong reason to think it would be signed in Washington because to them it sounded good but wouldn’t have any effects on what politicians then deemed important.

Long story short, Washington ultimately didn’t sign, and there is some thought we (L5 Society) helped by getting it better noticed by politicians and more thought given about possible future effects, though I don’t know how much real effect we had. It is also thought that some other countries that were thinking of signing also didn’t when the US indicated it wasn't. Notably, the USSR and China didn’t, but India did and just in reviewing this, I see there are arguments there that they should get out:

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com...le31634373.ece

[Van Rijn]

Actually, answering my own question, this article implies that there may be opposition from inside the EU. But it just implies the possibility.

https://theconversation.com/artemis-...reement-148134

I see they mention the moon treaty there. France and India signed it, but Germany didn’t.

[selvaarchi]

My take away was China will not sign as they will not be invited even if they want to - "The Artemis Accords are open to any country, Gold responded. “In an ideal world, we would sit down with every country that could possibly participate in Artemis,” he said. “But we also cannot wait for every single issue to ultimately be resolved before going to the Moon.” Or almost any country. Since the Artemis Accords are structured as bilateral agreements between the US and each nation, any involvement with China would likely run afoul of existing restrictions in federal law involving bilateral cooperation between NASA and Chinese entities. “NASA, as an agency, will always follow the law, and the law right now prohibits us from engaging China on bilateral activities,” Bridenstine told reporters. If the law changed, he added, “NASA stands ready, but that this point it’s just not in the cards.”"

[selvaarchi]

"Building on the Artemis Accords to address space sustainability" This Op-ed piece in SPACENEWS talks about multilateral agreement instead.

https://spacenews.com/op-ed-building...ustainability/

In early October, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, Italy and Canada entered into the Artemis Accords, which established agreed principles for cooperation in the civil exploration and use of the moon, Mars, comets and asteroids for peaceful purposes. The Artemis Accords build on multiple treaties that have shaped the behavior of nations and their commercial industries in the exploration and use of space, including the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1972 Liability Convention and the 1975 Registration Convention. These prior multilateral agreements have a significant number of signatories and, accordingly, have been widely adhered to as binding international law, whereas the Artemis Accords today have eight signatories committing to implement a set of agreed principles through bilateral agreements. Therefore, it has been almost 50 years since any significant changes have been made internationally to address the evolution in the use of space resources, despite the dramatic increase in space activities during these past decades. With countries and commercial users planning increased short-term and long-term space missions, including for human habitation, mining, communications and energy, the Artemis Accords, while welcome, are overdue.

But perhaps even more overdue is a multilateral agreement — which the Artemis Accords are not — on the principles governing space traffic management and space sustainability. In the late 1970s, shortly after our last major treaty on space sustainability was in place, NASA was already predicting the Kessler effect, a theoretical scenario in which the density of low Earth orbit objects increases due to space pollution and becomes high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascading effect, increasing the risk of further collisions. This would ultimately foreclose use of low earth orbital resources. If true, this would mean that even objects heading to geostationary orbit or farther into space (e.g., to the moon and Mars), would face increasing dangers as they travel through lower orbits.

[Roger E. Moore]

Who owns the Moon? The longstanding international consensus has been that no one does. But the United States and seven other nations recently agreed on a policy shift: No one owns the entire Moon, though governments and private actors can own natural lunar resources. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently announced a set of bilateral agreements called the Artemis Accords. The European Space Administration joined in soon after, declaring Europe’s intention to collaborate with NASA on the Artemis program. Through this program, NASA and its partner space agencies seek to develop a stable human presence on the Moon and travel to Mars.

https://www.theregreview.org/2020/12...pace-activity/