Speaker 1: Welcome to tex Stuff, a production from I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with I Heart Radio
Speaker 1: and I love all things tech. And in space, no
Speaker 1: one can hear you scream. They also can't hear you laugh, uh, cry,
Speaker 1: or launch a thermonuclear device. And that's caused sound doesn't
Speaker 1: travel in space. Do you know why. It's not that
Speaker 1: there's no air out in space. It's that there's not
Speaker 1: enough of anything out in space. And just to be clear,
Speaker 1: this wasn't how I actually planned to start this episode.
Speaker 1: But I'm on a roll now, so you can't stop me. Okay.
Speaker 1: So sound is a physical phenomena. We've talked about this
Speaker 1: before on Tech Stuff. It's where particles transmit vibrations outward
Speaker 1: from a source of those vibrations. And as so long
Speaker 1: as you've got a bunch of physical particles of stuff,
Speaker 1: and those physical particles of stuff are close enough together
Speaker 1: to bump into each other when one gets pushed, but
Speaker 1: they're not so tightly packed that they aren't able to
Speaker 1: move at all, well, then sounds going to travel through
Speaker 1: that substance. Sound will go through water or solid objects
Speaker 1: or the air. And in every case, these particles, like
Speaker 1: air molecules for example, vibrate and in the air this
Speaker 1: causes little fluctuations in air pressure, which in turn affect
Speaker 1: the tympanic membrane or ear drum in our ears, and
Speaker 1: we experience that as hearing sound. I've gone into that
Speaker 1: in greater detail on other podcasts, but that's the basics there. Well,
Speaker 1: in space, there's a vacuum or essentially a vacuum, and
Speaker 1: a vacuum is an area devoid of matter. Most of
Speaker 1: space is empty with no matter in it. And if
Speaker 1: there's no matter, there's no medium through which vibrations can travel.
Speaker 1: The vibrations can't go anywhere, so there's there's no sound,
Speaker 1: there's no vibration. But that's not what this episode is
Speaker 1: about anyway. I just wanted to say, it's not just
Speaker 1: that there's no air out in space. There's no anything
Speaker 1: out in space. That's the problem. Okay, let's get to
Speaker 1: what this episode is actually about. It's about the rules
Speaker 1: we humans have come up with when it comes to
Speaker 1: space exploration, because, as it turns out, human beings can
Speaker 1: be amazing, but we can also be pretty terrible and
Speaker 1: space holds a lot of potential for amazing and terrible things,
Speaker 1: with or without our involvement. So in order to try
Speaker 1: and guide us towards being more amazing and less terrible,
Speaker 1: very smart people got together to come up with some
Speaker 1: basic rules that we should all follow. Basic vague rules,
Speaker 1: but they were kind of vague on purpose. Now recently
Speaker 1: those rules got a bit of any extension with the
Speaker 1: Artemis Accords, a collection of guidelines for lunar exploration, you know,
Speaker 1: like exploring the Moon, and those were developed by NASA. Now,
Speaker 1: as I record this, NASA has announced that eight countries,
Speaker 1: including the United States, have signed the Accords. There are
Speaker 1: some notable absences in those eight countries, some that might
Speaker 1: change over time and a couple that probably won't. But
Speaker 1: we'll get to all that first. Why do we need
Speaker 1: rules in the first place. Early in the history of
Speaker 1: the space exploration there really were just two big countries
Speaker 1: that we're making any progress at all, and those two
Speaker 1: countries were the United States and the then Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: Complicating matters is that the USA and then US s R.
Speaker 1: We're not the best of buddies, to put it lightly.
Speaker 1: In fact, the two nations were in the middle of
Speaker 1: the Cold War, which was defined as the open rivalry
Speaker 1: between nations that doesn't reached the point of open hostilities.
Speaker 1: The Cold War was an era of propaganda. It was
Speaker 1: an era of posturing, political maneuvering, and attempts to undermine
Speaker 1: each other, like each country was doing this actively against
Speaker 1: the other country. I grew up at the tail end
Speaker 1: of the Cold War, and it was not a fun time.
Speaker 1: And you could convincingly argue that we're seeing kind of
Speaker 1: a similar situation today between the United States and a
Speaker 1: couple of other countries. But that's a matter for a
Speaker 1: political podcast, not for tech stuff. However, it's important to
Speaker 1: note that the rush to space wasn't just about demonstrating
Speaker 1: technical superiority over an adversary, though that did play into
Speaker 1: it a lot. There were also some pretty heavy implications
Speaker 1: that go along with the capability of launching stuff into space.
Speaker 1: So by the nineteen fifties, the Soviet Union had developed
Speaker 1: its own nuclear weapons, and when the USSR launched the
Speaker 1: first man made satellite to orbit the Earth, you know,
Speaker 1: spoot Nick, that was in October nineteen fifty seven. And
Speaker 1: if the Soviets could launch a payload into space, they
Speaker 1: might also be able to mount a nuclear warhead onto
Speaker 1: a ballistic missile and send it across the world. You know,
Speaker 1: like at the United States, there would be no need
Speaker 1: to load up bombers aircraft to carry nuclear weapons. Those
Speaker 1: could be intercepted and shot down before they could deploy
Speaker 1: their weapons. So this was a terrifying possibility, the idea
Speaker 1: of a nation being able to press up button, so
Speaker 1: to speak, and send a volley of missiles armed with
Speaker 1: nuclear warheads all the way across the world, and it
Speaker 1: ushered in not just the space race, but also helped
Speaker 1: boost the nuclear arms race and the escalation of the
Speaker 1: philosophy of mutually assured destruction, a truly awful awful approach
Speaker 1: to world peace, the idea of well, we have to
Speaker 1: be peaceful because otherwise we will literally obliterate one another.
Speaker 1: Not exactly comforting if you're a little kid. And so,
Speaker 1: partly to demonstrate that the US was just as capable
Speaker 1: as the Soviet Union when it comes to long distance rocketry,
Speaker 1: and partly to attempt to secure the coveted title of
Speaker 1: most technologically and scientifically advanced nation on Earth. We saw
Speaker 1: a lot of rapid development in the fledgling space industry
Speaker 1: in the United States. Now, don't get me wrong. While
Speaker 1: the motivation to fund such development may have come from
Speaker 1: less noble origins, the people who are actually working to
Speaker 1: achieve what seemed impossible. We're mostly focusing on solving difficult
Speaker 1: engineering problems. They were using math and science and technology
Speaker 1: and human ingenuity to do some really incredible stuff. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: some began to think ahead a little bit about the
Speaker 1: implications of base capability. If we were to send satellites
Speaker 1: and later people into space, we might one day also
Speaker 1: send other stuff out there, weapons, for example, or colonists,
Speaker 1: or mining operations, or all sorts of things. And there
Speaker 1: were no guidelines or laws about that. I mean, who
Speaker 1: the heck has jurisdiction out in space? The space cops
Speaker 1: someone called red letter media, and so representatives in the
Speaker 1: United Nations began to work out language that would help
Speaker 1: set expectations when it came to space travel and use
Speaker 1: the United Nations considerable clout to convince member nations to
Speaker 1: sign on in agreement. And some nations this would be
Speaker 1: less of a lift than for other nations. Because many
Speaker 1: countries were more or less bystanders with the space race.
Speaker 1: They didn't really have any involvement in the space industry.
Speaker 1: So they could sign a treaty, but you could argue
Speaker 1: it wasn't really meaningful because they weren't pursuing space exploration
Speaker 1: or any sort of space industry. But the UN established
Speaker 1: there needed to be some ground rules for space. Ground
Speaker 1: rules for space. Well, I feel it's that's not just
Speaker 1: a weird phrase, but possibly an early discarded David Bowie
Speaker 1: song ground rules for space. I'm getting off track. This
Speaker 1: would ultimately lead to the drafting of what we would
Speaker 1: call the Outer Space Treaty, but even that had a
Speaker 1: few predecessors. So for example, nineteen one years before the
Speaker 1: Outer Space Treaty of nineteen sixty seven, during the sixteenth
Speaker 1: session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the
Speaker 1: UN adopted a resolution called seventeen twenty one UH. The
Speaker 1: Assembly did this without a vote. I should add, and
Speaker 1: this resolution begins quote the General Assembly recognizing the common
Speaker 1: interest of mankind and furthering the peaceful uses of outer
Speaker 1: space and the urgent need to strengthen international cooperation in
Speaker 1: this important field. Believing that the exploration and use of
Speaker 1: outer space should be only for the betterment of mankind
Speaker 1: and to the benefit of States, irrespective of the stage
Speaker 1: of their economic or scientific development, commends to states for
Speaker 1: their guidance in the exploration and use of outer space.
Speaker 1: The following principles international law, including the Charter of the
Speaker 1: United Nations, applies to outer space and celestial bodies. Outer
Speaker 1: space and celestial bodies are free for exploration and use
Speaker 1: by all states in conformity with international law, and are
Speaker 1: not subject to national appropriation. The resolution goes on to
Speaker 1: invite a committee one called the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Speaker 1: Space to research potential legal problems and their solutions. Subsequent resolutions,
Speaker 1: such as Resolution eighteen zero two and Resolution nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: two would further emphasize that space exploration should be treated
Speaker 1: as an endeavor with the goal of benefiting all people's
Speaker 1: of Earth, not just the individual nations that were involved
Speaker 1: in the actual pursuit of space exploration. Moreover, that the
Speaker 1: guiding principles should be overall peaceful. As this was going on,
Speaker 1: the United States and the Soviet Union continued their space race,
Speaker 1: with the Soviets getting a bunch of firsts like the
Speaker 1: first human in orbit UH and the first spacewalk, but
Speaker 1: the US wasn't far behind and registered a few firsts
Speaker 1: of its own, including the first case of two spacecraft
Speaker 1: docking while in space. Moreover, in nineteen sixty two, President
Speaker 1: John F. Kennedy famously declared that by the end of
Speaker 1: that decade, the United States would put astronauts on the
Speaker 1: Moon's surface. At the same time, the world was growing
Speaker 1: far more tense as the US and uss ARE were
Speaker 1: ramping up the Cold War. Here on Earth. The US
Speaker 1: had installed ballistic missiles and countries like Turkey and Italy
Speaker 1: that were capable of reaching locations within the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: The United States had also partly funded an invasion of
Speaker 1: Cuba to try and depose Fidel Castro in the Bay
Speaker 1: of Pigs invasion. The reasons behind this go well beyond
Speaker 1: the scope of our podcast, but a consequence of that
Speaker 1: action was that Castro would reach out to the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union and ask that the USSR installed nuclear weapons on
Speaker 1: Cuba as a deterrent for any future invasion attempts, and
Speaker 1: the USSR agreed and began to ship and kind of
Speaker 1: smuggle nuclear weapons into Cuba. And Cuba is just a
Speaker 1: hundred miles or so off the coast of Florida in
Speaker 1: the United States, and the nuclear arming of Cuba led
Speaker 1: to a series of hurried and tense talks that fortunately
Speaker 1: resulted in the uss ARE withdrawing weapons from Cuba and
Speaker 1: the US dismantling the weapons it had placed in Europe.
Speaker 1: But historians point to the crisis as the closest that
Speaker 1: the two nations ever got to act initiating a nuclear war.
Speaker 1: While the Cuban missile crisis ended without a war, the
Speaker 1: antagonism between the United States and the USSR was undeniable,
Speaker 1: and with both nations launching missions into space, committees within
Speaker 1: the United Nations felt compelled to outline a more thorough
Speaker 1: set of rules regarding space exploration and how space should
Speaker 1: be treated from a political and global perspective. And that's
Speaker 1: how the Outer Space Treaty of nineteen sixty seven, otherwise
Speaker 1: known as the Treaty on Principles governing the Activities of
Speaker 1: States in the exploration and use of outer space, including
Speaker 1: the Moon and other celestial bodies, would come about. The
Speaker 1: United Nations opened the Treaty for signatures in three locations
Speaker 1: on January nineteen sixty seven. Those three locations were Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. In the United States, London in England, and
Speaker 1: Moscow in the Soviet Union. Like the earlier resolutions, the
Speaker 1: Outer Space Treaty largely lays out general rules for space exploration,
Speaker 1: with the focus on peaceful applications that benefit all of humanity,
Speaker 1: rather than space exploring nations hoarding knowledge and resources just
Speaker 1: for their grubby, own little selves. It also laid out
Speaker 1: general rules that no one can claim any part of
Speaker 1: space as part of the nation. You can't, you know,
Speaker 1: map out a sector of space and say this belongs
Speaker 1: to Germany, or I claim the Moon for Luxembourg. I mean,
Speaker 1: you could say it, but if you sign the treaty,
Speaker 1: everyone would give you mad side eyed and say bro
Speaker 1: for reals, non reality. There would be a lot of
Speaker 1: pressure here on Earth, and not just atmospheric pressure, so
Speaker 1: they would say, you know, just play nice, don't don't
Speaker 1: do that. Also, claiming any part of space would be
Speaker 1: really hard to back up. But then this treaty was
Speaker 1: made in part as an effort to prevent potential conflicts
Speaker 1: in the future, rather than as a response to a
Speaker 1: current crisis, so this was kind of future proofing space exploration. Now,
Speaker 1: there are seventeen articles in that Outer Space Treaty, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to summarize them quickly just give you an
Speaker 1: overview of which what each one is. So the first
Speaker 1: is that bit I talked about where space exploration results
Speaker 1: should be done with the goal of benefiting all peoples
Speaker 1: of all countries, whether or not those countries are in
Speaker 1: the space exploration biz. Second is the bit that says
Speaker 1: no nation can claim sovereignty over any part of space.
Speaker 1: That's article too. The third is that space exploration should
Speaker 1: be conducted within the parameters of established international laws. So,
Speaker 1: in other words, if it's illegal in the middle of
Speaker 1: the ocean, where no single nation really has dominion, it
Speaker 1: would also be illegal in space. The next article says
Speaker 1: putting nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction
Speaker 1: in orbit around Earth is a big no no. You're
Speaker 1: also not allowed to put military installations on celestial bodies
Speaker 1: like the Moon. And then the next article states that
Speaker 1: astronauts are envoys for all of humanity and that should
Speaker 1: an astronaut need emergency assistance, any capable country should agree
Speaker 1: to help, regardless of where the astronaut is from back
Speaker 1: on Earth. So, in other words, if if a Soviet
Speaker 1: cosmonaut were in danger, then and an American crew had
Speaker 1: the opportunity to help, the cosmonaut, it would be the
Speaker 1: responsibility of the Americans to lend that help, regardless of
Speaker 1: whether or not the political tensions between the United States
Speaker 1: and the USSR were, you know, at all time high.
Speaker 1: Article six says that countries will be held responsible for
Speaker 1: any activities they conduct in outer space, whether those come
Speaker 1: from a government origin or from a non governmental entity
Speaker 1: within the country. So, in other words, if a company
Speaker 1: like Coca Cola were to install nuclear weapons on the
Speaker 1: Moon as part of the Cola Wars, you know, they
Speaker 1: really ramped up, the United States would be held accountable
Speaker 1: for that transgression because Coca Cola's headquarters are right down
Speaker 1: the street for me. Seven. Article seven states that if
Speaker 1: you launch something and in the process of the launch
Speaker 1: you cause damage to some other country, it's tots your
Speaker 1: fault and you need to exchange insurance information. Article eight
Speaker 1: is that if you launch it into space, that thing
Speaker 1: is yours. It belongs to you, and it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: how far away it gets from you. If it goes
Speaker 1: out of the Solar System, it still belongs to you.
Speaker 1: Article nine says that all nations agreed to explore space responsibly,
Speaker 1: taking care not to interfere with any other nations activities
Speaker 1: in space as well as avoid bringing potentially contaminating material
Speaker 1: back to Earth. So essentially, this is like I'm drawing
Speaker 1: a line down the middle of space, and that side
Speaker 1: is yours and this side is mine. Not not so
Speaker 1: much that, but more like, here's a little imaginary border
Speaker 1: around what I'm doing. Please don't go across it because
Speaker 1: you might hurt what's going on, and everyone's supposed to,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of agree to that. All right, So
Speaker 1: we're about halfway through the articles, but I think I
Speaker 1: need to drink some tang. That's a space joke, So
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break. All right. We're up to
Speaker 1: Article ten of the nineteen sixty seven Space Treaty that
Speaker 1: one says that space exploring nations shall quote consider, on
Speaker 1: a basis of equality, any requests by any other states
Speaker 1: parties to the Treaty to be afforded an opportunity to
Speaker 1: observe the flight of space objects launched by those states
Speaker 1: end quote. In other words, to share expertise when it
Speaker 1: comes to stuff like spacecraft flying through and stuff. You
Speaker 1: can't prevent other countries from serving what you're doing. It's
Speaker 1: kind of a transparency argument. Article eleven This one says
Speaker 1: that nations should share the results of their space exploration
Speaker 1: work with the Secretary General of the United Nations, who
Speaker 1: then has a responsibility to disseminate that information to the
Speaker 1: other nations that are within the u N. So essentially saying,
Speaker 1: if you learn something cool, you've got to share it
Speaker 1: with the rest of the class. Article twelve says that
Speaker 1: if a nation allows members of another nation into their
Speaker 1: space stuff in outer space, it's expected that the visitor
Speaker 1: will extend the same courtesy to the host reciprocity. In
Speaker 1: other words, Article thirteen covers cases in which there may
Speaker 1: be an international inter governmental organization or a group of
Speaker 1: organizations working together, and how to resolve any questions or
Speaker 1: issues between these should they come up. The actual wording
Speaker 1: is a bit clunky, but essentially tries to create a
Speaker 1: way to work out any issues before they graduate from
Speaker 1: issues and become full blown problems. Article fourteen just covers
Speaker 1: the process of signing the treaty, saying that even if
Speaker 1: a state doesn't sign the treaty before it's enforced, it
Speaker 1: can join at any point afterwards, so it's no sweat
Speaker 1: if you couldn't hoof it to Washington Moscow or London,
Speaker 1: you can sign it later. Fifteen says that any state
Speaker 1: that signs the treaty may propose amendments to the treaty.
Speaker 1: Article sixteen says the nation can withdraw from the treaty,
Speaker 1: but only after the treaty has been in force for
Speaker 1: a full year. So after it's been signed by enough
Speaker 1: signatories to be put in force, you could wait a year.
Speaker 1: Then you could announce your intention to withdraw from the treaty,
Speaker 1: and the date of actual withdrawal would be a another
Speaker 1: year from the date of request. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: the very earliest you could back out after you signed
Speaker 1: the treaty would be two years after the treaty was
Speaker 1: actually put into force. And finally, Article seventeen covers how
Speaker 1: the treaty is made available in various languages and locations
Speaker 1: and authenticated so that the nations of the United Nations
Speaker 1: can actually read the ding dang durn thing. It's just
Speaker 1: like here's where it lives kind of deal. Now, since
Speaker 1: the U N entered the treaty into force, more than
Speaker 1: one nations have signed it, and politics being what they are,
Speaker 1: some of the nations that had signed it are, you know,
Speaker 1: no longer nations Today, it's changed, and some nations that
Speaker 1: have signed it didn't exist as sovereign nations at least
Speaker 1: back in ninety seven. So I guess the fluid nature
Speaker 1: of humanity points to why the treaty was a good
Speaker 1: idea in the first place. The u N would consider
Speaker 1: subsequent rules for space exploration to expand on this space
Speaker 1: Treaty in the following years. Some of those would be
Speaker 1: ratified by space exploring nations and some were not. For example,
Speaker 1: there's the Agreement governing the Activities of States on the
Speaker 1: Moon and other celestial bodies, also known as just the
Speaker 1: Moon Agreement, which the u N opened for signatures in
Speaker 1: December of nineteen seventy nine. It took several years for
Speaker 1: the measure to receive the five signatures it would need
Speaker 1: to enter into force, with Austria being the fifth in July.
Speaker 1: Since its introduction, no nation that has actually sent missions,
Speaker 1: manned or otherwise to the Moon at least successfully has
Speaker 1: signed on. That means that while the treaty has entered
Speaker 1: into force, none of the countries that are actually sending
Speaker 1: stuff to the Moon have signed onto that part that
Speaker 1: particular agreement, which makes it largely meaningless. Though, I should
Speaker 1: point out that India, which does have a space program
Speaker 1: but has failed in a recent attempt to send a
Speaker 1: lunar mission, did sign it, or is at least participating
Speaker 1: in the agreement, but has not as of yet ratified
Speaker 1: the agreement. So why is that? Why are the country
Speaker 1: reads that actually are sending stuff to the Moon. Why
Speaker 1: have they not signed on with this agreement that's been
Speaker 1: available since nineteen nine. Well, many of the provisions of
Speaker 1: the agreement kind of fall in line with the older
Speaker 1: Space Treaty, you know, it's more of the same, but
Speaker 1: they extend it to not just the Moon but also
Speaker 1: lunar orbit. Now, if I'm reading the original treaty correctly,
Speaker 1: I think you could reasonably argue that lunar orbit counts
Speaker 1: as space. Therefore prohibiting stuff like the deployment of nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons and lunar orbit is somewhat redundant, because the original
Speaker 1: treaty says you're not supposed to do that in space period.
Speaker 1: But my point being that the Moon Agreement was making
Speaker 1: a point of saying the Moon is not to be
Speaker 1: weaponized or leveraged for militaristic purposes. Perhaps Article seven of
Speaker 1: the Moon agreement is where actual nations that had been
Speaker 1: sending lunar missions started to feel a reluctance to sign on.
Speaker 1: That article states the countries sending up Moon missions quote
Speaker 1: shall take measures to prevent the disruption of the existing
Speaker 1: balance of its environment end quote, which might be seen
Speaker 1: as too great a limitation by some nations that are
Speaker 1: determined to exploit the Moon's resources. But I really think
Speaker 1: it was Article eleven that did it. That article states, quote,
Speaker 1: the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage
Speaker 1: of mankind, which finds its expression in the provisions of
Speaker 1: this agreement end quote. And then it goes on to say,
Speaker 1: quote neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon,
Speaker 1: nor any part thereof, or natural resources in place, shall
Speaker 1: become property of any state, international, in, inter governmental or
Speaker 1: non governmental organization, notational organization, or non governmental entity, or
Speaker 1: of any natural person end quote. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: while the agreement doesn't expressly forbid mining the Moon for resources,
Speaker 1: the agreement calls for those resources to not belong to
Speaker 1: any one company, person, or nation. You know, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter who dug it up. It doesn't belong to them.
Speaker 1: It rather belongs to humankind. The article goes on to
Speaker 1: propose an international body that would determine how such resources
Speaker 1: might be put to any use. And I'm guessing that's
Speaker 1: where a lot of the countries that were sending up
Speaker 1: missions to the Moon said, yeah, no thanks, but hey,
Speaker 1: what the heck is up there anyway? I mean, what
Speaker 1: resources could possibly be on the Moon apart from dust
Speaker 1: and some moon rocks, And why would we want to
Speaker 1: spend the resources and incur the risks of such a
Speaker 1: complicated operation in the first place. Well as the m
Speaker 1: I T Technology Review put it in an article titled
Speaker 1: Here's how we could mind the Moon for rocket fuel?
Speaker 1: As a spoiler alert right there, that article published on
Speaker 1: May ninety they said, quote, the Moon is a treasure
Speaker 1: trove of value bowl resources, gold, platinum, and many rare
Speaker 1: earth metals await extraction to be used in next generation electronics.
Speaker 1: Non radioactive helium three could one day power nuclear fusion reactors.
Speaker 1: End quote. Now, it sounds as though a lot of
Speaker 1: those resources would be ones that we would want to
Speaker 1: harvest from the Moon and then bring back to Earth,
Speaker 1: though we have to keep in mind that that approach
Speaker 1: would be outrageously expensive. It would need to be a
Speaker 1: truly remarkable return, like the mother load of all mother loads,
Speaker 1: to make this a viable alternative to just mining those
Speaker 1: same resources here on Earth. Even if the resources are
Speaker 1: far less plentiful on Earth, we don't have to go
Speaker 1: into space to mind them, right, or we would have
Speaker 1: to reach a pretty bleak point where the resources here
Speaker 1: on Earth are so incredibly difficult to access or are
Speaker 1: so incredibly rare that it necessitates the risk of acquiring
Speaker 1: those same things off planet. But that's that's a big
Speaker 1: bar that you have to meet. But the most precious
Speaker 1: resource in the long run is the one that we
Speaker 1: have a lot of here on Earth, and that's water.
Speaker 1: I mean, like our planet's surfaces covered with the stuff.
Speaker 1: But it's really precious on the Moon. And that's because
Speaker 1: we all know that water is made out of hydrogen
Speaker 1: and oxygen, right. Well, if you split water molecules apart
Speaker 1: so that you harvest the hydrogen and the oxygen, and
Speaker 1: then you liquefy both the hydrogen and the oxygen, you've
Speaker 1: got yourself some rocket fuel. Not to mention, you could
Speaker 1: also harvest oxygen so that you have you know, oxygen,
Speaker 1: the stuff we need to breathe, and as I've been
Speaker 1: told there's not a whole lot of that out and
Speaker 1: outer space, so being able to make oxygen for the
Speaker 1: purposes of life support would be really helpful. Uh. And
Speaker 1: obviously this would be an enormous benefit for any mission
Speaker 1: that aims to explore our Solar System or beyond while
Speaker 1: relying on stuff like rocket propulsion, right, because by making
Speaker 1: rocket fuel on the Moon or within lunar orbit, we
Speaker 1: could create refueling stations. So imagine a station that's in
Speaker 1: lunar orbit and spacecraft from the Moon are bringing fresh
Speaker 1: supplies of rocket fuel to this. This lunar orbit station,
Speaker 1: or maybe the station itself is a processing facility. It's
Speaker 1: just taking in the raw oxygen and raw hydrogen and
Speaker 1: making rocket fuel there. Meanwhile, spacecraft from Earth will swing
Speaker 1: by the Moon for a refuel before they head off
Speaker 1: somewhere else like Mars or whatever. It would mean that
Speaker 1: we wouldn't have to load down the spacecraft on Earth
Speaker 1: with so much fuel. We would only need enough fuel
Speaker 1: to launch it off the planet and send it to
Speaker 1: the Moon for its refueling. And that's great because fuel
Speaker 1: is heavy stuff, and as we add fuel to a
Speaker 1: spacecraft here on Earth, we increase the overall weight of
Speaker 1: the spacecraft, which in turn means that we need to
Speaker 1: make sure that we have enough fuel to get not
Speaker 1: just the spacecraft, but all the fuel that's carrying up
Speaker 1: into space. This is a really delicate balancing act. We
Speaker 1: need enough fuel to get to where we're going, but
Speaker 1: it's not just as simple as adding a few thousand
Speaker 1: gallons here or there, because that added weight changes the
Speaker 1: requirements we face to get something into space in the
Speaker 1: first place. And as Austin Powers would say, oh no,
Speaker 1: I've gone cross eyed again, a refuel station in lunar
Speaker 1: orbit would decrease the amount of fuel that we would
Speaker 1: need to produce and use here on Earth per launch.
Speaker 1: Plus rocket fuel is really expensive, so by splitting that
Speaker 1: up between Earth and lunar operations, we might be able
Speaker 1: to be more cost effective with our fuel production, depending
Speaker 1: on how we do it, Although that could just turn
Speaker 1: out to be just as expensive or maybe even more expensive,
Speaker 1: but easier to do it. It's kind of hard to
Speaker 1: say because we haven't done it yet. In addition, here
Speaker 1: in the United States, we've seen the rise of the
Speaker 1: private space industry, something that has become necessary as NASA,
Speaker 1: you know, the government's funded space agency in the United
Speaker 1: States has faced challenges in several forms, like in budget cutbacks,
Speaker 1: failed projects, and occasional organizational problems. Moreover, while we in
Speaker 1: the United States, at least those of us from Generation
Speaker 1: X or maybe older generations, we tend to think of
Speaker 1: space exploration as a NASA thing, the truth is that
Speaker 1: the technologies that are used in space exploration come from
Speaker 1: hundreds of non governmental companies, you know, the private sector.
Speaker 1: It's not like NASA has a space ship factory where
Speaker 1: the organization creates all the launch vehicles and spacecraft for
Speaker 1: all the missions. You've got companies like Boeing, lockeed Raytheon,
Speaker 1: Northrop Grumman, and many others that are building the components
Speaker 1: and the spacecraft that NASA uses. Add to that companies
Speaker 1: like SpaceX, and you've got a heavily involved private sector.
Speaker 1: And most companies won't quote share the assets we create
Speaker 1: with all of humanity and of benevolence way up in
Speaker 1: their mission statement. That's just not you know, important to them.
Speaker 1: Companies exist to make profit for those who run or
Speaker 1: fund the company. So if the space industry is reliant
Speaker 1: on these private sector entities to get things done, and
Speaker 1: if those entities are going to be doing the heavy lifting,
Speaker 1: I mean, even on the Moon, where gravity is just
Speaker 1: one sixth of what we have here on Earth, then
Speaker 1: it stands to reason that it's not likely a country
Speaker 1: like the United States is going to agree to sign
Speaker 1: over any resources that it harvests to some international body
Speaker 1: that will determine how those resources can be used. And
Speaker 1: that brings us up to a new proposal, one that
Speaker 1: was first unveiled in the spring of twenty twenty, and
Speaker 1: it is one proposed by NASA, has some early buy
Speaker 1: in from a few countries and a few notable object actions,
Speaker 1: and it's called the Artemis Accords, and I'll tell you
Speaker 1: more about them after this quick break. In the United States,
Speaker 1: NASA has announced plans to return to the Moon by
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four project Artemists, and aggressive schedule to be sure,
Speaker 1: and one that I wonder if we can make in
Speaker 1: a world that has been largely sidetracked by the COVID pandemic.
Speaker 1: I was skeptical we could achieve it without the COVID problem.
Speaker 1: With the COVID problem, I'm really skeptical. Doesn't mean it's impossible,
Speaker 1: but it's going to require a whole lot of work. However,
Speaker 1: assuming that all plans are still pointing to a new
Speaker 1: crew going to to the Moon and we would actually
Speaker 1: see the first woman visit Earth's natural satellite on that mission,
Speaker 1: then NASA wants to work out some rules and set
Speaker 1: x spectations as well as create standards and things like
Speaker 1: the equipment that we would use in lunar operations to
Speaker 1: allow for international cooperation. Now, standards are important because everything
Speaker 1: really needs to work well together. Think of it as
Speaker 1: being almost modular, like the International Space Station was designed
Speaker 1: in such a way. So one obvious example of why
Speaker 1: this is important would be docking mechanisms. It's important to
Speaker 1: standardize them so that any two spacecraft, no matter where
Speaker 1: they are from or who built them, would be able
Speaker 1: to dock with one another safely and securely so that
Speaker 1: they could you know, share resources or or do a
Speaker 1: rescue operation or whatever it may be. But as Christopher Johnson,
Speaker 1: a space law advisor, and you know how cool is
Speaker 1: that title. But as Christopher Johnson has said, quote, We're
Speaker 1: not going to wait to negotiate a treaty that we
Speaker 1: think is in our national interest end quote, we being
Speaker 1: the United States. See treaties take a lot of time
Speaker 1: because you've got so many different parties that are involved
Speaker 1: that might object to one part over another, and then
Speaker 1: you have to amend it and you know, end up
Speaker 1: showing it to everybody again see if there are any
Speaker 1: other objections. And you're talking about numerous committee meetings and
Speaker 1: drafts and approvals and ratification steps, and at the end
Speaker 1: of that process, there's no guarantee that the outcome that
Speaker 1: the actual treaty that's been drafted is going to be
Speaker 1: one that the United States would agree to in the
Speaker 1: first place. So instead, we're gonna make our own Moon
Speaker 1: agreement with black Jack and wait, no, sorry, sorry, got
Speaker 1: Futurama there for a second. Anyway, NASA's alternative to this,
Speaker 1: to to waiting around for another treaty or you know,
Speaker 1: ratifying the nineteen seventy nine Moon Agreement, happens to be
Speaker 1: the Artemis Accords. Now, these are named after the mythological
Speaker 1: artemists twin sister to a follow the Goddess of the
Speaker 1: Moon and also Goddess of the Hunt, and lots of
Speaker 1: other stuff. NASA unveiled these accords on May twenty. The
Speaker 1: actual signing of the accords happened in October twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: More on that in just a minute. The subtitle for
Speaker 1: the accords is Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration
Speaker 1: and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets and Asteroids for
Speaker 1: Peaceful Purposes. So already you can see that this appears
Speaker 1: to be treading, you know, familiar ground or regulars I guess,
Speaker 1: as the Moon Agreement from the United Nations and the
Speaker 1: Treaty Outer Space Treaty before that. But there are some
Speaker 1: important differences, the big one being about all that exploitation
Speaker 1: of resources. But I'll get to that in a second.
Speaker 1: So the accords state that quote the principles set out
Speaker 1: in these Accords are intended to apply to civil space
Speaker 1: activities conducted by the civil space agencies of each signatory.
Speaker 1: These activities may take place on the Moon, Mars, comets
Speaker 1: and asteroids, including their surfaces and subsurfaces, as well as
Speaker 1: in orbit of the Moon or Mars, in the Lagrangian
Speaker 1: points for the Earth Moon system, and in transit between
Speaker 1: these celestial bodies and locations. End quote. Now, the accords
Speaker 1: have some sections that are pretty much in alignment with
Speaker 1: the articles, or at least some of the articles from
Speaker 1: the Outer Space treaty. There are sections about releasing scientific
Speaker 1: data gathered during experiments in order to benefit all of humanity.
Speaker 1: For example, there's also a section that stresses the importance
Speaker 1: of all activities on the Moon and Mars, etcetera, should
Speaker 1: be for peaceful purposes. There's another section that's about keeping
Speaker 1: outer space heritage such as moon landing sites safe, as
Speaker 1: these are records of important historical events. But then we
Speaker 1: get to section ten space resources. Under Section ten ub
Speaker 1: section two, we get the following passage quote, the signatories
Speaker 1: affirm that the extraction of space resources does not inherently
Speaker 1: constitute national appropriation under Article two of the Outer Space Treaty,
Speaker 1: and that contracts and other legal instruments related to space
Speaker 1: resources should be consistent with that treaty end quote. Now,
Speaker 1: if we dip back to Article two of the other
Speaker 1: Space Treaty, that's the one that says no one can
Speaker 1: claim a part of space as belonging to any particular
Speaker 1: nation or entity. So, in a way, the accords liken
Speaker 1: the extraction of resources in space to what we do
Speaker 1: with oceans. So nations can extract resources from otions, even
Speaker 1: into international waters. You can do that to an extent anyway,
Speaker 1: but no nation can claim the oceans for its own. Likewise,
Speaker 1: the accords allow for a little more wiggle room. You
Speaker 1: can't claim the Moon, for example, but you could claim
Speaker 1: the stuff you mine from the Moon. Since the U
Speaker 1: n's Moon Agreement has only a few signatories on it,
Speaker 1: and only one of those has ever attempted a lunar mission,
Speaker 1: and that one failed, the Artemis Accords could become a
Speaker 1: real set of standards for lunar exploration and exploitation, as
Speaker 1: well as the principles for mining mars and asteroids and
Speaker 1: comments and whatnot. Eight nations have signed the Accords in
Speaker 1: October as founding members. They are, in alphabetical order, Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg,
Speaker 1: United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: Australia was also a party to the Moon Agreement, though
Speaker 1: not a signatory. NASA plans to add more nations to
Speaker 1: the Accords over time, having them sign on. But there
Speaker 1: are a couple of glaring gaps in that list that
Speaker 1: are not likely to join anytime soon, and that is
Speaker 1: a bit of a problem. And one of the big
Speaker 1: ones is Russia. While it's been decades since the dissolution
Speaker 1: of the Soviet Union, Russia has carried on the tradition
Speaker 1: of space exploration. Heck, one of the reasons the private
Speaker 1: space industry is so important in the United States is
Speaker 1: that it is an alternative to depending upon Russia when
Speaker 1: it comes to launching missions with a crew up into space.
Speaker 1: Once the space Shuttle program ended, the United States didn't
Speaker 1: have an alternative, and so we've had to depend upon
Speaker 1: Russian spacecraft to get people up and back to space
Speaker 1: and from space. But Russia did not sign the Artemis Accords,
Speaker 1: so that ends up being an issue. Dmitri Regozzen, the
Speaker 1: head of the Russian space program, called out the accords
Speaker 1: for being quote to US centric end quote of NASA's
Speaker 1: plan to return earned to the Moon in general, just
Speaker 1: the Artemist project, not the Accords in particular. He has said,
Speaker 1: quote with the lunar project, we are observing the departure
Speaker 1: of our American partners from the principles of cooperation and
Speaker 1: mutual support that developed during cooperation on the I s S,
Speaker 1: the International Space Station. They see their program not as international,
Speaker 1: but similar to NATO, there is America, everyone else must
Speaker 1: help and pay to be honest, we are not interested
Speaker 1: in participating in such a project. End quote. As for
Speaker 1: the Artemis Accords themselves, according to the Verge, he actually
Speaker 1: compared those to a lunar invasion in a tweet that
Speaker 1: has since been deleted. Yikes. Now, some might dismiss the
Speaker 1: objections of Russia as pure political posturing to be alliterative,
Speaker 1: but I'd say Demitri is not alone in criticizing the
Speaker 1: Artemis Accords. Uh. Aaron Bowley and Michael Buyer's Uh. Those
Speaker 1: are two researchers. They wrote a piece for the Policy
Speaker 1: Forum of Science magazine, and they said that the Accords
Speaker 1: were problematic. The pieces titled U S Policy puts the
Speaker 1: safe development of space at Risk, which kind of gives
Speaker 1: you an indication of how they feel about this. They
Speaker 1: state that the Accords quote, if accepted by many nations,
Speaker 1: could enable the U S interpretation of international space law
Speaker 1: to prevail and make the United States, as the licensing
Speaker 1: nation for most of the world's space companies, the de
Speaker 1: facto gatekeeper to the Moon, asteroids, and other celestial bodies
Speaker 1: end quote. Buyers and Bulli argue that the Accords are
Speaker 1: a thinly veiled effort to further the commercial interests of
Speaker 1: the United States without regard for the international community or
Speaker 1: the principles behind the Outer Space Treaty. Now, the other
Speaker 1: big absence from the list of countries that have signed
Speaker 1: the accords would be China. China hasn't necessarily refused to
Speaker 1: sign the same way Russia did. I mean, the Chinese
Speaker 1: government might very well agree with Russia's point of view,
Speaker 1: but whether that's the case or not, it's a moot point.
Speaker 1: Because NASA isn't allowed to engage with China. It's against
Speaker 1: the law. See back in two, US Representative John Culberson
Speaker 1: from Texas urged then President Barack Obama against cooperating with
Speaker 1: China's space program. He argued that the Chinese government was
Speaker 1: not being transparent about the goals of their space program,
Speaker 1: and that by aiding China, the United States could be
Speaker 1: putting itself and other nations in danger. Further down the line,
Speaker 1: that would lead to Congress eventually proposing and passing a
Speaker 1: law that says, quote, none of the funds made available
Speaker 1: by this division may be used for the National Aeronautics
Speaker 1: and Space Administration or the Office of Science and Technology
Speaker 1: Policy to develop design plan promulgate, implement, or execute a
Speaker 1: bile out ural policy, program, order, or contract of any kind,
Speaker 1: to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with
Speaker 1: China or any Chinese owned company unless such activities are
Speaker 1: specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of
Speaker 1: enactment of this division end quote. So yeah, that's off limits.
Speaker 1: NASA officials have said that the agency stands ready to
Speaker 1: engage with China should Congress ever change this law. Ever,
Speaker 1: you know, put a new law in place that would
Speaker 1: allow such a thing, But that largely depends upon how
Speaker 1: China behaves in general. And I would say that right now,
Speaker 1: signs are not particularly positive as far as things changing
Speaker 1: enough for Congress to reverse that previous decision. And so
Speaker 1: there is very little chance China is going to join
Speaker 1: the accords in the near future, and that represents a
Speaker 1: pretty big problem. A lot of the accords focuses on
Speaker 1: stuff like way is to avoid conflict and reducing the
Speaker 1: chance for problems with stuff like space debris. But if
Speaker 1: two major space powers either can't or won't sign those accords,
Speaker 1: then it's not particularly helpful. The US might use the
Speaker 1: accords to justify its own operations on in space kind
Speaker 1: of a see, we're behaving by the rules that we
Speaker 1: happen to have set up for everybody else. It's just
Speaker 1: that not everyone agreed to play by those rules, that's all.
Speaker 1: And I realized this comes across as being a bit cynical,
Speaker 1: but I also think it's kind of how things are
Speaker 1: shaking out. The reality of the situation is we've already
Speaker 1: seen some initial steps toward a future where space mining
Speaker 1: is a real thing, whether it's on the Moon or
Speaker 1: asteroids or comets or Mars or whatever. In fourteen, the
Speaker 1: Rosetta orbiter was the first man made object to soft
Speaker 1: land on a comet nucleus. As I record this episode,
Speaker 1: there is a spacecraft called Osiris Rex that is preparing
Speaker 1: to touch down on an asteroid in order to gather
Speaker 1: samples from that asteroid and then return back to Earth.
Speaker 1: It's a NASA project. There are numerous companies that are
Speaker 1: aiming to make asteroid mining and space mining a real industry.
Speaker 1: They are working toward that right now, and so having
Speaker 1: some rules seems like it would be a really good idea.
Speaker 1: But I definitely can understand why researchers and some nations
Speaker 1: might object to those rules coming from one specific country
Speaker 1: and everyone else agrees to go along with it, especially
Speaker 1: a country that has a very large vested interest in
Speaker 1: the space industry, as opposed to an agreement that has
Speaker 1: been arrived at through international treaty processes. Will these accords
Speaker 1: go down in history as an agreement that led to
Speaker 1: an unprecedented era of space exploration and exploitation, or will
Speaker 1: they be held up as the United States attempting to
Speaker 1: justify practices that the international community hasn't really signed off
Speaker 1: on at large? What will Russia and China end up doing?
Speaker 1: Is space destined to become the next Gold Rush land grab? Well,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what treaties are supposed to prevent. Now, if
Speaker 1: I'm being honest, I think we're gonna be in for
Speaker 1: a few messy decades on this one unless we see
Speaker 1: some real international cooperation on the treaty front that has
Speaker 1: buy in from multiple states. And I just don't know
Speaker 1: how that's gonna happen in a world where too many
Speaker 1: parties see potential profit out in space. There's there's too
Speaker 1: many interests that conflict with one another, So I think
Speaker 1: it's just gonna be a rough thing to work out
Speaker 1: and it's coming. It may not be you know, within
Speaker 1: the next five years or so, but I'm certain within
Speaker 1: my lifetime it's gonna end up being a bigger deal.
Speaker 1: So I hope we can work that out well. That
Speaker 1: rab so this episode about Space Treatise and Moon Agreements
Speaker 1: and Artemis Accords, and it really does tie back into technology,
Speaker 1: and in multiple ways, not just the technology that requires
Speaker 1: us to get out there and make this stuff happen,
Speaker 1: you know, to have like a viable mining operation or
Speaker 1: lunar you know, base or whatever. It also ties back
Speaker 1: in because the resources we might mind, some of those
Speaker 1: might come back to Earth and end up being part
Speaker 1: of the next generation of technological gadgets we depend upon,
Speaker 1: and it helps us get around things like the problems
Speaker 1: we find with rare earth metals, although honestly, the real
Speaker 1: pub problem with rare earth metals isn't necessarily their scarcity
Speaker 1: so much as the ethics behind it. But that's a
Speaker 1: that's a topic for another episode entirely. As for this one,
Speaker 1: it's time for me to sign off. If you guys
Speaker 1: have any suggestions for future topics of tech stuff, please
Speaker 1: reach out and let me know. The best way is
Speaker 1: to do that on Twitter and they handle is text
Speaker 1: stuff h s W and I'll talk to you again
Speaker 1: really soon. Text Stuff is an I Heart Radio production.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the i
Speaker 1: heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.