Moons scientifically important sites may be lost for ever in Mining Rush.
Moons
scientifically important sites may be lost for ever in Mining Rush.
Researchers seek protection for pristine areas of moons far side and polar regions.
The moon is becoming a potential battleground where scientific
exploration collides with commercial interests, as NASA launches its first
lunar mission in half a century. Scheduled for later this year, Peregrine
Mission 1, created by the private company Astrobotic, ushers in a new era in
lunar exploration. Many more missions, including those under NASA's Artemis program,
are set to follow, sparking excitement among researchers about a potential
golden age of exploration. However, there are concerns that the growth of
private landers could trigger a "moon-rush", with companies looking
to exploit valuable minerals and resources, potentially compromising
scientifically significant lunar sites.
Because private entities lack sufficient legal protection for
these areas under current space laws, scientists are immediately lobbying
governments and international organizations to address the issue before
irreversible damage is done. Richard Green, an astronomer at the University of
Arizona, is establishing a Lunar Sites Working Group for the International
Astronomical Union (IAU), emphasizing the urgency of the situation. Martin Elvis,
an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also
draws attention to the unique nature of lunar sites that could be lost forever
without proper protection.
While upcoming lunar missions, both public and private, aim to
locate resources for astronaut support or commercial mining, scientists fear
that such activities could endanger important locations such as permanently
shadowed craters near the poles. These frozen craters, with temperatures below
-225 degrees Celsius, hold large reserves of ice, preserving an important
record of Earth's water supply over billions of years. Furthermore, these
shadowy craters serve as excellent sites for space-based infrared telescopes,
which are important for studying Earth-like planets around distant stars.
The scientific community is particularly concerned about the
potential adverse effects of mining activity on these unique lunar features. In
addition to threats to irrevocable scientific research, resource extraction can
create vibrations that interfere with gravitational wave signals and emit lunar
dust that can settle and weaken telescope mirrors.
Notably, radio astronomers are advocating shielding the far
reaches of the Moon by shielding it from Earth's radio noise. The International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) designated the far side as a "radio-quiet
zone" in 1971, but the growing presence of moon-orbiting satellites has
threatened this pristine radio environment.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) prohibits nations from claiming
territory over celestial bodies but is silent on space mining, an idea once
introduced in science fiction. The United States and some other countries argue
that resource extraction does not imply sovereignty, citing parallels with
fishing in the open ocean. The 2015 Space Act strengthened this position,
allowing US companies to extract and profit from space assets.
While NASA's Artemis Accords protect historical artifacts and
advocate for a sustainable space environment, they lack clear protections for
scientifically valuable areas. The United Nations, particularly its Committee
on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, may provide additional guidance by
designating lunar sites of outstanding scientific importance. However, the slow
pace of UN decision-making poses a challenge.
Telescope manufacturers are pinning their hopes on the IAU to address these concerns. Ledby Richard Green, the working group aims to define the problem, identify sites in need of protection and establish judging criteria. Despite the overall enthusiasm among scientists for lunar exploration, the growing resource rush raises concerns about prioritizing short-term interests over the protection of scientific endeavors.
Comments
Post a Comment