Auckland, the four Artemis 2 astronauts orbiting the moon this week are expected to land soon. NASA’s ambitious mission means the return of human deep space travel and renewed interest in establishing a long-term lunar base.
The images captured by the crew are spectacular, showing the Earth hovering low on the horizon from the far side of the Moon.
They are yet another reminder of technological achievement and human ambition. But behind the scenes, decisions are already being made about what happens next and who benefits.
While there have always been legal tensions surrounding ownership, access and control of space, by 2026 they appear to be no longer abstract concepts.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty declares space “the domain of all mankind,” prohibiting nations from claiming ownership. However, newer frameworks such as the US Artemis Accords introduce concepts such as exclusive “safe zones” around lunar activities, which may include the mining of water or helium-3.
Space law expert Cassandra Steele sees this as an example of the United States “trying to find a way out of a loophole.” Legal scholar Michael Byers and space archaeologist Alice Gorman further argue that even well-intentioned mechanisms can become tools for asserting control in a realm that should remain shared.
This tension between cooperation and competition, shared interests and self-interest is neither accidental nor new. It reflects fundamentally different ways of imagining the future of space.
So will this new lunar age be an era of collective stewardship of things beyond Earth, or another space race?
4 futures of the final frontier
===================
Our latest research maps these competing visions of space on four different trajectories.
Some nations see space as a frontier to be fought over and exploited, echoing earlier eras of land expansion. Others see it as a resource that drives economic growth on the planet, prioritizing rapid development over long-term sustainability.
A third vision imagines space as an escape hatch: as Earth becomes increasingly uninhabitable, space becomes a place to build new societies. Finally, a smaller but emerging view is that Earth and space are closely linked, requiring management across both realms.
These scenarios are already playing out in current policy and practice.
Consider the growing commercial presence in orbit. The number of satellites currently reaches tens of thousands, about two-thirds of which are owned by SpaceX, and hundreds of thousands more satellites are being planned.
The result is track congestion and a creeping “tragedy of the commons” in which individual actors maximize short-term gains at the expense of the environment. Orbital debris, including more than a million fragments larger than one centimeter, threatens long-term access to space itself.
At the same time, geopolitical competition is intensifying.
Artemis 2 may be viewed as an international mission, but it also reflects strategic positioning — especially as major powers like the United States and China race to realize their moon landing ambitions.
a feeling of possibility
=============
In this increasingly contested landscape, Aboriginal worldviews offer an entirely different way of imagining space: not as a boundary beyond the earth, but as part of a shared living system.
Our research, which uses a “causal layered analysis” approach developed by Pakistani-born Australian political scientist Sohail Inayatullah, shows that these tensions reflect deeper, competing assumptions about the uses of space.
It either becomes a market, a lifeline, a refuge, or an ecosystem, depending on who sets the rules.
Artemis 2 makes these differences even more apparent. Decisions being made now about regulation, access and governance will shape the future of space activity for decades to come.
We argue for a move to an “Earth-Space Sustainability” model that views Earth and space as interconnected realms rather than separate realms.
This means setting shared sustainable development goals, engaging Indigenous peoples in shared governance, and integrating the values of reciprocity, shared responsibility and long-term stewardship into decision-making.
These principles need to be embedded in institutions and rhetoric.
Shared governance frameworks that bring governments, industry and Indigenous communities together, along with enforceable standards and tools such as space sustainability ratings, provide a path to more responsible stewardship.
This is not the easiest route for countries to take. It challenges powerful economic incentives and geopolitical competition. But the alternative—unfettered competition and environmental degradation—is worse.
Returning to the moon provides a sense of possibility. People are naturally attracted to its engineering, scale and ambition. But the more important story lies below.
When humans fly around the moon again, the question will no longer be whether we can go back, but how we choose to behave once we get there. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
This article was generated from automated news agency feeds without modifications to the text.
