Dr Varma Deyalsingh
The return of humans to the Moon through the Artemis programme marks one of the most ambitious space efforts since the Apollo era. Framed as a new age of exploration, Artemis has reignited debate: is this a bold scientific venture, or a geopolitical contest—particularly with China—and is it worth the cost to the US taxpayers facing economic hardship?
Artemis is designed to establish a sustained human presence on the Moon, develop new technologies and prepare for eventual missions to Mars.
China is already moving towards setting up a manned International Lunar Research Station by the late 2030s. China National Space Administration has partnered with Russia’s Roscosmos, along with South Africa, Pakistan, Egypt,Venezuela, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Nicaragua, Senegal, Thailand and Serbia. This alliance competes with the Artemis programme.
Although the Outer Space Treaty prohibits anyone from claiming lunar territory, whoever sets up a base can claim some sort of rights to the site and its vicinity.
With the geopolitical conflicts we see on Earth, how can we prevent the outbreak of conflict in space?
Xiaodan Wu wrote in Science Direct, “Space has re-emerged as a central arena”
The US has been pushing for the Artemis Accords, a set of non-binding, multilateral agreements guiding space exploration. Russia and China have not signed, with some critics suggesting they are “US-centric.”
The interplay between human interaction, cultural differences, self-interest, capitalist pursuits and the idiosyncrasies of leaders creates a complex feedback loop that shapes power dynamics.
The Iran-US conflict shows a frightening display of power dynamics where the rest of the world is a perplexed onlooker.
On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, shocking Americans and intensifying Cold War fears. In response, the US created NASA and Corona to use satellites for reconnaissance. The US ultimately “won” the space race by landing first on the Moon, after which interest in lunar missions declined.
Artemis now echoes the Cold War dynamics of the Apollo programme.
The cost is projected at tens of billions over the coming decade. Critics argue that at a time when many Americans face inflation, healthcare challenges and economic inequality, such spending is disconnected from everyday needs and should go toward social programmes, infrastructure, or education.
Supporters, however, contend that space investment has historically yielded significant returns. The Apollo programme spurred innovations in computing, materials science and telecommunications—benefits that permeated civilian life. Artemis is expected to drive similar advancements and stimulate industries ranging from aerospace to robotics.
Proponents argue that leadership in space has long-term economic and security implications. But would this China bloc accept dominance from America?
Ever since we’ve recorded the history of human conduct, we have had people who disagreed with each other, resulting in war. This is a mode of operation within our species. Global leaders now engaged in war games may carry this same mindset to the moon and beyond.
Since the early 2000s, we have seen challenges underpinning the international politics of space. This can include the militarisation and some would argue the weaponisation of space. We’re also seeing hype to a certain extent of mining for lunar resources.
It is sometimes difficult to distinguish what is private, what is public, and what is state or non-state. For example, what is happening in Ukraine. We saw clearly the role of private space companies providing satellite images that played a key role in terms of having a good idea of the manoeuvring of troops on the ground. Another good example here is how Musk, through StarLink, intervened to provide access to the Internet to Ukrainian soldiers.
But this has been controversial for other states like Russia and China. For example, very recently, we saw Russian authorities claiming that StarLink satellites can be legitimate targets.
We’re entering into an uncharted territory for drawing the line about what is a military activity and what is a civilian activity.
The Outer Space Treaty bans nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, but it allows for the use of space weapons.
Satellites are used for communications, navigation, reconnaissance, surveillance and early warning systems.
What we are seeing recently is the increasing interest in counter-space anti-satellite weapons developed to be launched from Earth to destroy satellites in orbit.
There now exist co-orbital anti-satellites, cyber attacks and electronic warfare, such as spoofing and jamming satellites, as well as directed energy lasers.
Ultimately, Artemis sits at the intersection of exploration, competition and national priorities.
I pray that the pursuit of the Moon does not come at the expense of those still struggling here on Earth.
