FANCY a mining trip to the moon? Talk to NASA. The US space agency is now offering a leg-up in the commercial race to the moon. Having enjoyed a series of successful partnerships with private companies, such as SpaceX, to send cargo to the International Space Station, NASA now hopes to do the same with moon landers. But contention over lunar property rights may still stymie commercial growth.
In mid-January, NASA announced its lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (CATALYST) programme, which will give participants access to resources including NASA scientists, software and testing labs in exchange for the rights to lander designs born from the partnership.
The project calls for two types of lander: one that can deliver between 30 and 100 kilograms of gear, and one that can carry 250 to 500 kilograms. That surpasses the capabilities demanded by the Google Lunar X Prize, which is offering $20 million to the first group to put a lander on the moon, move it 500 metres and beam pictures back to Earth.
CATALYST is a wonderful opportunity, say officials at lunar mining hopeful Moon Express of Mountain View, California, which paid for access to NASA facilities when designing an X Prize entry.
Public-private partnerships have proven their worth in low Earth orbit, so this is a step in the right direction, says Mike Gold, director of Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas, Nevada, which designs inflatable space habitats. “It’s one small step for lunar landers, one giant leap for commercial development of the moon,” he says.
But Gold warns of a lingering hurdle to commercial lunar investment: the lack of property rights under the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and its lunar accords.
“Under these treaties, the moon and its natural resources are not subject to national appropriation,” says Joanne Wheeler, a space lawyer with CMS Cameron McKenna in London and the UK delegate to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. “And the placement of structures, personnel or vehicles on it does not create a right of ownership over the surface.”
What’s needed is a test case to see how individual governments will react to claims on commercial space investments, says Gold. So Bigelow Aerospace has submitted a request to the US Federal Aviation Administration. “We have asked the FAA to license a mission to place a Bigelow habitat on the surface of the moon, and we have asked that the licence respects a zone of non-interference and non-impingement around the Bigelow habitat,” says Gold.
While that is not assigning property rights per se, it would establish an area where, in principle, Bigelow’s operations would be protected from interference from rovers or landers sent to the moon by other companies or nations. So far the FAA has not announced a decision.
Most industry watchers think some form of regulation will be needed before private ventures become moon pioneers. “Investment is not likely unless rights to extracted minerals can be accurately defined,” says Wheeler. “But the international community does not want a lack of legal certainty to lead to a free-for-all for private enterprise, either.”
This article appeared in print under the headline “NASA enters the private moon rush”