In April, Trump released anexecutive orderrestatingUS supportfor corporate exploitation of lunar and asteroid resources.
It’s free, every week, in your inbox.
Only 18 countries have signed the treaty.
Second, the accords introduce the concept of safety zones around lunar operations.
What kinds of conduct could count as harmful interference remains to be determined.
They could also intensify international conflict over space resources.
Will space continue to be treated as a global commons?
The Artemis Accords effectively kill off the prospect of international oversight of space mining.
The Moon Agreement committed signatories to establish an international regulatory framework when space mining was about to become feasible.
This moment is clearly now, as JapansHyabusa2mission to the Ryugu asteroid and ChinasChange 4lunar mission have demonstrated.
Both missions are collecting mineral samples.
Now, by releasing the Artemis Accords, the US has potentially scuttled these international negotiations for good.
But entrepreneurs in the US space sector have long contested the global commons principle.
And the US rejection of a global commons framework for space is ultimately a rejection of profit sharing.
Mining and tech companies would retain all the profits.
And this, in turn, would further entrench existing wealth inequalities in the space resource industry.
Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk celebrates at Saturdays SpaceX launch.
The practical sense of safety zones is clear.
Property rights provide commercial certainty, which space mining entrepreneurs have been demanding.
But property rights are only effective if the threat of legal enforcement is real.
Russian officials have alreadydenouncedTrumps executive order as an attempt to expropriate space and seize territory.
Chinese space experts have alsoconcludedthat safety zones amount to sovereign claims.
Which countries are likely to sign on?
But the real impact of the accords will be determined by the countries in between.
Australia, for its part, faces anawkward decision.
