Space: The Final Frontier for Corporate Takeovers
- Prakriti N
- Jun 26
- 11 min read
Updated: Jul 9
The Artemis II crewed lunar mission and the renewed space race as a domain of international competition and cooperation
A Giant Leap—But for Whom?
When Artemis II carries astronauts around the Moon in April 2026, it will mark humanity's first return to lunar space since 1972. This mission represents far more than a technological achievement—it embodies the paradoxical nature of 21st-century space exploration. While NASA Administrator Bill Nelson proclaims Artemis as "humanity's mission" (NASA, Artemis Accords: Principles for cooperation in space exploration, 2023), the geopolitical reality reveals competing visions for our celestial neighbour. The program unfolds against a backdrop where China and Russia through Chang'e program plan to build nuclear-powered International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) near the lunar south pole by 2035, India's Chandrayaan-3 has already staked claim to the resource-rich south pole, and private corporations like SpaceX aggressively pursue mining rights. Through the lenses of Dependency Theory (Wallerstein, 1974) and Securitization Theory (Buzan & Wæver, 1998), this essay examines how Artemis II reflects both neocolonial power structures and emerging security dilemmas in space. The central tension is clear: Will lunar exploration unite humanity, or simply export Earth's conflicts beyond our atmosphere?
Space Colonialism 2.0: The Dark Side of Lunar Politics
The Artemis program's architecture reveals what scholars’ term "techno-colonialism"—where advanced nations use technological superiority to maintain geopolitical dominance (Deudney, 2020). The Artemis Accords, signed by 55 nations as of May 2025, establish rules for lunar exploration that critics argue favor historical space powers. Article 10's provisions on "safety zones" around lunar operations effectively grant territorial control without formal sovereignty claims (NASA, Artemis Accords: Principles for cooperation in space exploration, 2023), creating what legal scholar Tronchetti calls “justification for claiming certain areas on celestial bodies, thereby undermining the principle of space as the common heritage of mankind.” (Tronchetti, 2020)
The Artemis program's structure reveals systemic technological gatekeeping that perpetuates dependency relationships in space exploration. While international partners make crucial contributions to the mission architecture—such as Canada's robotic arms and Japan's pressurized rovers—they maintain limited control over overall system operations. This dynamic is epitomized by the European Service Module, which provides essential propulsion for NASA's Orion capsule yet remains functionally subordinate to the American-led command structure. This arrangement as "asymmetric interoperability," (Boley & Byers, 2022) where technological contributions from partner nations become integrated into a hierarchy ultimately controlled by the United States.
This pattern of technological dependency intersects directly with emerging concerns about resource cartelization at the Moon's south pole. Scientific estimates suggest this region contains approximately 600 billion kilograms of water ice (Li et al., 2023), a resource of immense strategic value for life support systems and rocket fuel production. Geospatial analysis of Artemis planning documents reveals that 87% of proposed mining sites fall within zones accessible primarily to U.S.-allied missions (Boley & Byers, 2023). This concentration of resource access among a select group of technologically advanced nations raises fundamental questions about the equitable distribution of celestial resources.
The landscape surrounding lunar exploration further compounds these issues through growing legal fragmentation. As the United States advances its Artemis Accords framework, China and Russia have responded by developing the competing International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) initiative. Space policy analyst Namrata Goswami describes this bifurcation as creating "competing spheres of lunar influence" that closely resemble 19th-century colonial spheres of influence on Earth (Goswami, N., & Garretson, P. A., 2020). This legal divide could make space governance splits permanent, just as humans are about to settle beyond Earth. The rules created now might trap unfair systems in place, affecting Moon development for years to come.
India's Chandrayaan-3 mission complicates this dynamic. By landing on the south pole for just 75 million dollars—compared to Artemis’ 93 billion dollars budget—ISRO demonstrated what development economist Amartya Sen might call "frugal innovation" in space (ISRO, 2023) (Nobel Prize Org, 1998). However, India's subsequent signing of the Artemis Accords (NASA, Artemis Accord Signatory, 2025) suggests even emerging space powers face pressure to align with established regimes.
Orbital Anxieties: The New Space Cold War
The securitization of lunar activity has accelerated dramatically since 2020. U.S. Space Command's DoD 2023 report construed China's lunar ambitions as "a direct threat to orbital stability" (USSPACECOM, 2023), while Chinese state media counters by portraying Artemis Accords as an attempt by the United States to establish “unilateral control over lunar resources and space governance" (Xinhua, 2023; MFA, 2022, n.d.). This mutual threat construction follows the Copenhagen School's model of securitization as "speech acts" that transform issues into security concerns (Buzan & Wæver, 1998).
The line between civilian space programs and military goals is fading as countries use their militaries for Moon missions. The U.S. Space Force trains crews for NASA’s Artemis program, while China’s Moon plans are run by its military. Both countries are developing technology that serves both civilian and military purposes—for example, NASA’s lunar navigation systems are designed to work with the Pentagon’s existing military networks. This shows how even ‘peaceful’ space tech can have military uses (U.S. Space Force & NASA, n.d.).
This trend toward militarization has been accompanied by concerning moves toward the territorialization of space. The U.S. 2023 National Defense Authorization Act's designation of cislunar space as a "strategic domain" has found its counterpart in China's declaration of "lunar interest zones." Legal scholar Michelle Hanlon warns that these developments risk creating "the conditions for a tragedy of the commons in space," as competing territorial claims could undermine the cooperative frameworks that have governed space activities for decades (Hanlon, M. L., 2019).
The new space race is deepening global divisions, with rival alliances forming. Russia’s 2021 exit from Artemis and its turn toward China recalls Cold War-era bloc politics. As scholar John Mearsheimer notes, “Space is now the ultimate high ground in great power rivalry”—risking the Moon’s shift from shared science to another battleground for Earth’s conflicts. Growing militarization, territorial claims, and alliance splits threaten the ideal of peaceful space exploration.
The parallels are clear. Just as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty answered Cold War tensions, experts like space lawyer Steven Freeland argue we now need “a Geneva Convention for the Moon' to avoid war in space.”
The Corporate Moon: When Billionaires Own the Night Sky
Once a symbol of shared human ambition, the Moon is quickly turning into real estate for the world’s wealthiest individuals (Stern, A., 2023). Billionaire-led companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin are not just players in space exploration—they’re beginning to dominate it (GAO-23-106518, 2023). SpaceX currently controls almost all of NASA’s contracts for delivering cargo to the Moon, and Blue Origin has locked down rights to build part of the Artemis landing system (NASA, Artemis Accords: Principles for cooperation in space exploration, 2023). These aren’t just science projects anymore—they're business ventures.
But this rapid privatization of space brings a host of new problems, especially because there are barely any rules in place. The one major international agreement that tried to limit ownership of Moon resources—the 1979 Moon Agreement—was rejected by all spacefaring nations (Jakhu, R. S., & Pelton, J. N. (Eds.), 2020). As it stands, there's no real law preventing companies from staking claims, digging into the Moon for valuable minerals, or building whatever they want. In short, the Moon could become a lawless frontier—not unlike the Wild West, but without sheriffs or boundaries (Stern, A., 2023).
That’s not just a legal headache—it’s a planetary one. Scientists worry that mining the Moon could have serious consequences. Digging up its surface could kick up fine lunar dust that travels far and fast in the Moon's low gravity, potentially damaging expensive equipment or disrupting future missions (Elvis, M., 2021). Unlike Earth, there’s no wind or rain to settle the dust. Once disturbed, it floats and lingers—a silent but serious threat.
Beyond the dust and debris, there’s an ethical storm brewing too. Imagine a future where people are working on the Moon—far from Earth, under corporate control, without the protections of labor laws. There are growing fears that this could lead to space-based sweatshops (Dubal, V. B., 2023), where workers are isolated and unprotected. The same labor issues we struggle with on Earth—exploitation, lack of safety, low pay—could easily be exported to the Moon.
What's truly unprecedented is that we’re approaching this new space age with outdated tools. Our laws, environmental safeguards, and labor standards are stuck on Earth while our ambitions shoot skyward. If we don't act quickly, the race to colonize the Moon could become more about profit than progress, and the night sky—once a shared dream—could be sold off piece by piece.
Alternative Futures: Pathways to Cooperative Governance
As humans get closer to setting up a long-term home on the Moon, one big question hangs in the air: who’s in charge up there? Before rockets become regular shuttles and lunar bases become reality, we need rules. And not just rules for science and safety, but for ownership, cooperation, and responsibility. If we don’t act now, the Moon might turn into another colony with tyrant colonizers.
One promising idea comes from an unexpected place: Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty has kept Earth's southernmost region peaceful, neutral, and focused on science for over 60 years. No country owns Antarctica, no weapons are allowed, and research is shared. Some experts think this “Antarctic Solution” could work for the Moon too. Imagine the Moon as a giant international lab—no flags, no fences, just shared knowledge and zero military ambitions. It’s an appealing vision. But here’s the catch: Antarctica is cold and remote, with little economic incentive. The Moon, on the other hand, has valuable resources. Will countries and corporations really resist the temptation to claim a piece for themselves?
Another idea comes from how we handle radio frequencies here on Earth. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) manages who gets to use which parts of the radio spectrum, so signals don’t interfere with each other (Jakhu & Pelton, J. N., 2022). Some experts suggest using a similar system for lunar resources—a sort of “resource traffic control.” This would mean creating a global registry where countries and companies must apply for access to lunar water, minerals, or landing zones. It wouldn’t prevent use, but it could help avoid chaos.
But here’s a new thought: what if the Moon had its own voice? Not a human one, but a legal one. Just like rivers and forests are starting to be granted legal rights on Earth—to protect them from exploitation—perhaps the Moon itself should be recognized as a legal entity. A “Lunar Commons” that must be preserved, respected, and defended from reckless development. That way, any activity on the Moon would have to answer a basic question: is this good for the Moon?
Another fresh perspective: instead of designing governance models only from Earth’s past, why not design one based on what space demands? The Moon is not just a new land—it's a new kind of place. Its vacuum, radiation, and remoteness mean survival will depend on unprecedented levels of cooperation. Perhaps the most inclusive framework for lunar governance could emerge from India’s civilizational ethos of Vasudhaiva Kuṭumbakam (One World Family), recently exemplified by its Chandrayaan-3 mission’s low-cost, collaborative model. This philosophy—rooted in the Mahā Upaniṣads vision of collective welfare—could recalibrate space governance toward equitable resource-sharing and conflict prevention. By applying this ancient ideal to modern lunar policy, stakeholders might transcend zero-sum competition, treating the Moon not as territory to be claimed but as a shared commons for scientific and human progress. India’s simultaneous engagement with both Artemis Accords and BRICS space initiatives positions it uniquely to bridge geopolitical divides, offering a template for pluralistic lunar stewardship that aligns with the Moon Village Association’s cooperative principles while resisting neo-colonial resource grabs.
As we approach this lunar moment, we’re not just deciding how to use space—we’re deciding what kind of civilization we want to be when we get there.
Conclusion: Navigating the Crossroads of Cosmic Destiny
The Artemis II mission presents humanity with a profound philosophical challenge: will we approach the cosmos as conquerors or custodians? The Dependency and Securitization Theories frameworks reveal not just technical or political dilemmas but fundamental questions about our species' maturity in confronting the universe. The lunar frontier holds up a mirror to Earth's unresolved tensions between ambition and ethics, between national interests and planetary responsibility.
This moment transcends mere space policy—it constitutes a civilizational test of our ability to evolve beyond the zero-sum competition when faced with infinite possibilities. The technologies being developed for Artemis could either become instruments of division or tools for cultivating what philosopher Frank White termed "the overview effect" on a species-wide scale. The governance structures we establish now will either institutionalize our parochialisms or help humanity transition to what Carl Sagan imagined as a "mature planetary civilization."
The true significance of Artemis II may ultimately lie not in its engineering achievements but in whether it marks the moment humanity learned to extend its social contract beyond terrestrial bounds. As we stand poised between dystopian scenarios of extraterrestrial exploitation and utopian visions of cosmic solidarity, the mission compels us to ask: Can we be worthy of the universe we seek to explore? The answer will define not just our lunar future but the very character of human expansion into the cosmos.
References
Boley & Byers. (2022). U.S. policy puts the safe development of space at risk. Science Journal, 377(6604), 454–456.
Boley & Byers. (2023). Who Owns Outer Space? International Law, Astrophysics, and the Sustainable Development of Space., 1241–1242.
Buzan & Wæver. (1998). Securitization and desecuritization. In R. D. Lipschutz (Ed.). (R. D. (Ed.), Ed.) Columbia University Press.
Crawford. (2022). Environmental issues and planetary protection. R. F. Wimmer, V. L. J. H. F. Wimmer, & P. J. R. Wimmer (Eds.), Wimmer's global space industry almanac, 52-57.
Deudney, D. (2020). Dark skies: Space expansionism, planetary geopolitics, and the ends of humanity. . Oxford University Press.
Dubal, V. 2023. (n.d.). The New Space Race is a Trap. The Nation.
Dubal, V. B. (2023). On algorithmic wage discrimination. Retrieved from Equitable Growth: https://equitablegrowth.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/071223-WP-On-Algorithmic-Wage-Discrimination-Dubal.pdf
Elvis, M. (2021). Space resources. In H. C. M. Frowein & A. L. W. van den Biesen (Eds.), Space security: The challenges of a new era. Leiden University Press.
Elvis, M. (2021). Lunar dust issues for in-situ resource utilization. Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Aerospace Conference (pp. 341-352). IEEE.
FAA. (2023). SpaceX Starship Super Heavy Project at the Boca Chica Launch Site. Retrieved from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): https://www.faa.gov/space/stakeholder_engagement/spacex_starship
GAO-23-106518. (2023). NASA Artemis Program: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Transparency of Progress and Address Risks . Retrieved from U.S. Government Accountability Office: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106518
Goswami, N., & Garretson, P. A. (2020). Scramble for the Skies: The Great Power Competition to Control the Resources of Outer Space . Lexington Books.
Hanlon, M. L. (2019). The tragedy of the space commons. Issues in Science and Technology, 35(3), 73-77.
Hein, M., Blount, A., & Cihlar, J. (2023). Planetary protection challenges for the Artemis program. Space Policy, 65, 101569.
Hein, M., Blount, A., & Cihlar, J. (2023). Planetary protection challenges for the Artemis program. Space Policy, 65, 101569. Space Policy.
ISRO. (2023). Chandrayaan-3 Mission: A Success Story. Retrieved from ISRO - Indian Space Research Organisation: https://www.isro.gov.in/Chandrayaan3.html
Jakhu & Pelton, J. N. (2022). ITU-like model for governance of outer space activities. Global space governance: An international study, 41-58.
Jakhu, R. S., & Pelton, J. N. (Eds.). (2020). Global space governance: Emergent issues, actors, and paradigms. Springer.
Li et al. (2023). Water ice distribution at the lunar south pole. Nature Astronomy Science. Science Partner Journal, 7(4), 321–329.
NASA. (2023). Artemis Accords: Principles for cooperation in space exploration. Retrieved from NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords
NASA. (2025). Artemis Accord Signatory. Retrieved from NASA Artemis: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/signatories-02.pdf?emrc=4c82f5
NASA OIG. (2022). NASA’s Artemis II mission: NASA must effectively manage risks as the program prepares for the first crewed test flight around the Moon (Report No. IG-23-004). https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-23-004.pdf.
Nobel Prize Org. (1998). Nobel Prize Amartya Sen. Retrieved from Nobel Prize Org: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1998/sen/facts/
Robinson, M. (2022). Is the commercialization of space a risk too far? Retrieved from World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/01/what-are-risks-commercial-exploitation-space/
Stern, A. (2023). The New Lunar Gold Rush is a Real Threat. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/27/opinion/lunar-gold-rush-space-law.html
Tronchetti, F. (2020). The Artemis Accords and the future of international space law. Critiques the Accords’ "safety zones" as a loophole for territorial control. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(3), 799–819.
U.S. Space Force & NASA. (n.d.). Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Fact Sheet. U.S. Space Force. Retrieved from PNT & Lunarnet: https://www.nasa.gov/lunarnet
United Nations. (1979). Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. A/RES/34/68.
USSPACECOM. (2023). DOD Release 2023. Retrieved from United States Space Command: https://www.spacecom.mil/Newsroom/News/Article-Display/Article/3526330/department-of-defense-releases-space-policy-review-and-strategy-on-protection-o/
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. . Academic Press.
Xinhua, 2023; MFA, 2022. (n.d.). Xinhua & MFA. Retrieved from Xinhua & MFA.
Comments