Michelle Hanlon advocates for a future of accessible space exploration and peaceful collaboration on the Moon. She highlights existing challenges in international space cooperation, referencing the ambiguities of the Outer Space Treaty and the Artemis Accords. Hanlon emphasizes the importance of protecting cultural heritage in space and establishing regulations for private companies. Despite current uncertainties, she remains hopeful about increasing private investment in space, driven by ambitious goals like Mars colonization.
Michelle Hanlon’s Vision for Space Exploration
In a recent opinion piece for the “New York Times,” Michelle Hanlon expressed her belief that “we can shape a future where space is accessible to all, where the Moon is a place of peaceful collaboration.” This perspective, while optimistic, also carries a realistic undertone. Hanlon acknowledges that achieving peace in space won’t happen overnight but emphasizes the importance of peaceful cooperation for our future on Earth.
The Challenges of Space Cooperation
Currently, the landscape of space exploration appears more confrontational than collaborative. NASA Administrator Bill Nelson has repeatedly stressed the urgency for the U.S. to land on the Moon before China, raising questions about the motivations behind this rush. This urgency stems from the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which asserts that space should be free and accessible to all, yet it includes limitations. These constraints dictate that celestial bodies can only be utilized for peaceful purposes, existing facilities must be respected, and activities should consider the interests of others. Unfortunately, these ambiguities create an advantage for those who arrive first, as there are no clear definitions for what constitutes a facility or what due consideration entails.
For instance, the first entity to establish a presence on the Moon could claim that the lunar dust surrounding their facility poses hazardous properties, establishing a 20-kilometer safety zone that restricts others. This lack of clarity in international law makes it challenging to contest such claims, effectively allowing the initial arrivals to set the rules.
During a recent lecture at ETH Zurich titled “Who Owns the Moon?” Hanlon explored the legal implications surrounding lunar ownership. Drawing from Roman law, she highlighted two contrasting views: Res nullis, which suggests that something belongs to no one and can therefore be claimed, and res communis, which posits that something is owned collectively by all. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is an example of the res communis principle.
The Outer Space Treaty, however, takes a nuanced stance, indicating that the exploration of space is the domain of all humanity, which complicates the issue of property rights. As the landscape of space exploration evolves, the need for a revision of the Outer Space Treaty becomes apparent, yet attempts to modernize it have faltered due to fear and mistrust among major spacefaring nations.
Instead, the U.S. and its partners have turned to the Artemis Accords, which outline principles for lunar exploration and resource use. While these accords have sparked international debate due to their creation outside the UN framework, they represent a proactive step toward advancing space law. Notably, even China has stated its position on resource extraction, indicating a degree of consensus.
As the president of the nonprofit organization “For All Moonkind,” Hanlon is dedicated to advocating for the protection of cultural heritage in space, such as Neil Armstrong’s footprint. Despite facing challenges in negotiating with spacefaring nations, she has made strides, including convincing the U.S. State Department to recognize space heritage in the Artemis Accords. While these accords are not legally binding, they signify progress in a slow-moving UN system, where more nations are beginning to prioritize cultural heritage protection.
With over a hundred sites on the Moon reflecting human activity, the question arises: should all be preserved? Hanlon believes that we must establish standards to determine which sites warrant protection, ideally set by an international body. Although some may view cultural heritage protection as a minor issue, she argues that recognizing significant landing sites could lead to impactful agreements in space law.
In addition to cultural heritage, the regulation of private companies’ space activities is urgent. Hanlon, who advises several startups, notes that many investors are seeking clearer regulatory frameworks. Without established guidelines, potential investors are hesitant to commit, especially if innovative technologies arise, such as turning lunar regolith into valuable resources.
Despite the current regulatory uncertainties, Hanlon is optimistic about the future of private investment in space. With high-profile figures like Elon Musk aiming for Mars, the ambition to establish settlements in space continues to grow, indicating that the private sector’s involvement in space exploration is only set to increase.