A model moon base designed by Bigelow Aerospace, with inflatable modules (Image: Isaac Brekken/The New York Times/Redux/Eyevine)

Fancy a mining trip to the moon? Talk to NASA. The US space agency is now offering a leg-up in the commercial race to the moon. Having enjoyed a series of successful partnerships with private companies, such as SpaceX, to send cargo to the International Space Station, NASA now hopes to do the same with moon landers. But contention over lunar property rights may still stymie commercial growth.

In mid-January, NASA announced its lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown (CATALYST) programme, which will give participants access to resources including NASA scientists, software and testing labs in exchange for the rights to lander designs born from the partnership.

The project calls for two types of lander: one that can deliver between 30 and 100 kilograms of gear, and one that can carry 250 to 500 kilograms. That surpasses the capabilities demanded by the Google Lunar X Prize, which is offering $20 million to the first group to put a lander on the moon, move it 500 metres and beam pictures back to Earth.


Helping hand

CATALYST is a wonderful opportunity, say officials at lunar-mining hopeful, Moon Express of Mountain View, California, which paid for access to NASA facilities when designing an X Prize entry. “We anticipate CATALYST will lead to delivery of payloads and missions to the lunar surface in the same way that commercial transport services to the space station have,” says Moon Express CEO Bob Richards.

Public-private partnerships have proven their worth in low Earth orbit, so this is a step in the right direction, agrees Mike Gold, director of Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas, Nevada, which designs inflatable space habitats (see image, above-right). “It’s one small step for lunar landers, one giant leap for commercial development of the moon,” he says.

Not everyone is happy though. The Barcelona Space Team, a Spanish entrant in the Lunar X Prize competition, says CATALYST may not be as helpful for international moon hopefuls. The US government follows strict security regulations that largely prevent it from sharing spaceflight technologies and expertise with foreign nationals.

“It’s good news for the American moon commercial ventures and the American Google Lunar X Prize teams. Not so much for the rest,” the Barcelona team say in a posting on their website. “We applaud NASA’s efforts to support private initiatives to develop commercial robotic exploration, but we wonder whether this unbalances the competition in favour of the American teams.”

Buffer zone

Gold warns of a lingering hurdle to commercial lunar investment by any nation: the lack of property rights under the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and its lunar accords.

“Under these treaties, the moon and its natural resources are not subject to national appropriation,” says Joanne Wheeler, a space lawyer with CMS Cameron McKenna in London and the UK delegate to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. “And the placement of structures, personnel or vehicles on it does not create a right of ownership over the surface.”

The US has signed the Outer Space Treaty but not the UN’s separate Moon Agreement, in part because some of its language is regarded as strongly anti-business.For instance, one section stipulates that the benefits derived from lunar natural resources, such as profits made by selling mined minerals, will be equitably shared by nation states who sign up, including countries that don’t have their own space programmes. “While this attempts to balance the interests of all states, it is not deemed reasonable by the space-faring countries. The current rules are not effective,” says Wheeler.

What’s needed is a test case to see how individual governments will react to claims on commercial space investments, says Gold. So Bigelow Aerospace has submitted a request to the US Federal Aviation Administration. “We have asked the FAA to license a mission to place a Bigelow habitat on the surface of the moon, and we have asked that the licence respects a zone of non-interference and non-impingement around the Bigelow habitat,” says Gold.

While that is not assigning property rights per se, it would establish an area where, in principle, Bigelow’s operations would be protected from interference from rovers or landers sent to the moon by other companies or nations. So far the FAA has not announced a decision.

Most industry watchers think some form of regulation will be needed before private ventures become moon pioneers. “Investment is not likely unless rights to extracted minerals can be accurately defined,” says Wheeler. “But the international community does not want a lack of legal certainty to lead to a free-for-all for private enterprise, either.”