Starting from the 15th century, thanks to advances in navigation tools, shipbuilding and mapmaking, European powers were able to explore new maritime routes and claim new overseas territories. Portugal and Spain were soon followed by Britain, France and the Netherlands, with the original goal being mainly to seek new trade routes to Asia.
The world quickly became a chessboard, with local populations disregarded. The colonial powers always started with a scramble to grab land and claim it as their own before any rival could. There is no doubt that a key part of the subsequent centuries of war between the European powers was linked to trading posts and who could control the seas.
Today, we might ask if we are at the dawn of a similar historical and geopolitical situation, but this time regarding space and, more precisely, the moon.
There are many similarities between the two epochs. New technologies — with countries today having increasingly better and faster access to space — are again the driving force. The focus on discovery and exploration is the same in space as it was on the sea. One main focus for countries is to establish settlements on the moon. And, as competition increases between the US and China, there is a race to see who will be able to reach this objective first. We cannot help but draw a parallel with the territory expansions of the European powers. Will the race to the moon go on to create conflicts in space?
This is obviously linked to whether there are strategic military advantages. The main point is that a moon settlement would give a great advantage in terms of space surveillance, as well as offering resilient communications infrastructure. On the offensive side, any military advantage regarding missile launches, for example, is yet to be proven due to orbital mechanics.
Another key point is whether there are resources to extract. There are early indications of metals and rare isotopes such as helium-3 being present on the moon, but for now these would mainly be for use as lunar resources in situ and not for trade with Earth. Yet, as satellites have become dominant in both commercial and military use, we understand that the moon presents a key strategic advantage.
Under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, no country can claim the moon; each country keeps jurisdiction over its own people, spacecraft and bases without territorial ownership. But it is becoming clear that the polar regions of the moon, especially the south pole, are ideal for bases and this puts the competition at a high level.
However, as often repeated, space is hard and this is a long-term risk. Yet, as with many things, technological leaps ensure change happens fast, meaning new opportunities and challenges present themselves. So, what would happen if two countries were in a neck-and-neck race to establish a base on the moon, with both coveting the same location? Could this lead to a global war? For now, this is not imaginable as capacity is lacking, but who knows what might happen in the future as competition between the US and China heats up?
Both countries have ambitious lunar programs. China aims to establish a sustainable presence on the moon. It is conducting robotic exploration on missions like 2024’s Chang’e-6, which collected samples. Other missions are planned, always focusing on sample return, lunar south pole exploration and resource prospecting, particularly for ice.
In the longer term, Beijing has plans for a crewed lunar landing in the 2030s, with the ultimate goal of establishing a research outpost near the south pole. All this would complete China’s broader space strategy, which seeks to enhance its capabilities, develop new technologies and secure a strategic position in terms of lunar resources and logistics.
Meanwhile, the US is pursuing a return to the moon through NASA’s Artemis program. It is also aiming to land astronauts near the lunar south pole. The first Artemis mission in November 2022 lasted 25 days and included the launch of an uncrewed spacecraft, which traveled around the moon before reentering the Earth’s atmosphere. The Artemis II mission hopes to send astronauts on a 10-day trip around the moon as soon as 2026.
The goals of the program include the in-orbit building of the Lunar Gateway space station and the development of surface habitats for long-term missions. The US strategy involves greater cooperation, as 60 countries have now joined the Artemis Accords, which promote the peaceful, transparent and sustainable exploration of the moon.
The reality is that long-term establishments on the moon will require much more than just empty habitats. Many new technologies will need to be developed if the highway to the moon is to be as useful as today’s maritime routes, including the support infrastructure required to sustain people living on the moon. A key element will be energy production — from solar and nuclear — as well as storage and distribution. All this in an extremely difficult environment. Systems will need to be designed to withstand extreme temperatures, radiation and much more. Hence, the first real competition, before any sovereignty claims on the moon (depending on how you want to frame it), will not be between countries but between humanity and the environment itself.
Just like in the Cold War space race, a lot of it will be about projecting power and influence. The first country to establish a presence on the moon will be able to claim technological superiority and gain a geopolitical advantage. There is a high risk that any base or long-term presence on the moon blows the Outer Space Treaty to pieces, especially if a long-term advantage is achieved.
Unfortunately, despite the righteous calls to stop framing space and the moon as a race to claim new territories, I believe human nature will make geopolitics and astropolitics converge. The ultimate surprise, once colonies have been established, might not be space wars but rather a fight for independence by the inhabitants of the moon or Mars, making history rhyme all the way to space.
BY: Writer Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
