THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPERATIVE OF SPACE SUSTAINABILITY:
THE CASE OF LUNAR MINING

G. LETERRE

Corresponding Author: University Toulouse-Capitole, Toulouse, France, leterreg@gmail.com

 

Introduction

Over the last decade, “space sustainability” has become a focal point in global discussions addressing the profound challenges posed by humanity’s continued expansion into space. It has garnered attention from academia, policymakers, and industry leaders, all increasingly recognizing the necessity of ensuring the long-term sustainability of space activities. The rise of space tourism, the increase in satellite launches, and the growing interest in exploiting extraterrestrial resources—particularly lunar regolith—have made adherence to sustainability practices even more pressing.
“Space sustainability” refers to conducting space activities in a manner that ensures continuity, safety, and equitable access for all stakeholders. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS), an essential actor in space regulation, defines space sustainability as “the ability to maintain the conduct of space activities indefinitely into the future in a manner that realizes the objectives of equitable access to the benefits of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, to meet the needs of the present generations while preserving the outer space environment for future generations” (1). This definition, which forms the basis of the Guidelines for the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities (LTS Guidelines) established by the UNCOPUOS’ Long-Term Sustainability Working Group, serves as a foundational framework for international cooperation, advocating for practices that protect the outer space environment and ensure space remains safe and accessible for all users.
The evolution of space activities over time has made the need for such practices even more apparent. Understanding this progression highlights their importance in safeguarding the future of space exploration. This evolution is often categorized into three distinct phases, each reflecting significant shifts in both the use and regulation of space (2):

  • The first phase began with the launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in 1957, marking the start of the Space Age. This era was primarily driven by geopolitical competition, with a focus on achieving significant technological milestones, such as landing a human on the moon (3). These activities were largely state-led, characterized by strong governmental control, limited participation, and an emphasis on national prestige and technological achievement (4).
  • The second phase followed the initial space race and was marked by a broader range of objectives. This period witnessed scientific exploration of the solar system, international cooperation, such as the development of the International Space Station, and the establishment of global satellite communication networks. Additionally, this phase saw the beginnings of commercial endeavors in space, particularly in satellite communications, which laid the groundwork for the more extensive commercialization efforts that would emerge later (5). Companies began to recognize the economic potential of space, resulting in the early development of commercial satellite services and the beginnings of private sector involvement in space activities (6).
  • The current third phase is characterized by the commercialization and privatization of space activities. The emergence of private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin has accelerated technological innovation and reduced costs, making space more accessible (7). This “space economy,” driven by commercial interests, has resulted in increased activities, including satellite deployment, space tourism, and plans for lunar mining and lunar bases (8).

This rapid evolution of space activities, marked by increased privatization and commercialization, presents both significant opportunities and daunting challenges. As private entities take on a more central role, even national space agencies are now increasingly relying on commercial capabilities for launching missions (9). This shift has led to a notable reduction in launch costs and a dramatic increase in space activity, thus expanding the scope and frequency of space missions (10).
However, these benefits come at a price. One of the foremost challenges associated with this transition is the growing pressure on a space environment that is, contrary to the intuitive perception of an infinite space widely open to human activities, both limited and fragile. The most notable example of this fragility is the accumulation of space debris, exacerbated by the dramatic increase in space missions, driven by both governmental and private entities (11). The deployment of mega-constellations—large networks of satellites designed to provide global internet coverage—illustrates this trend. While these constellations promise enhanced global connectivity, they also increase the risk of collisions and contribute to the proliferation of space debris (12). If left unaddressed, these risks could severely impact the sustainability of space activities, potentially leading to a future where usable orbital slots are depleted. Furthermore, the increasing commercialization of space also impacts access to deeper space. As the mesh of the “net” of functional satellites and debris alike around Earth tightens due to their proliferation, the prospect of expanding human activity to other celestial bodies becomes increasingly complex.
These concerns—primarily focused on activities within Earth’s orbit—are frequently raised in discussions about space sustainability. However, limiting the conversation to them alone overlooks the profound shift brought about by emerging space ambitions. This is particularly the case with the transition from predominantly Earth-centric commercial space activities to the exploration and exploitation of celestial bodies. Historically, space missions have focused on satellite deployment, scientific research, and crewed space exploration within Earth’s orbit. While this trend continues, new developments are introducing new preoccupations. A key example is the growing interest in lunar mining, driven by the potential for in situ resource extraction from the Moon. It promises to provide valuable resources such as regolith, hydrogen, and water, which could support long-term space missions and even sustain human life on other celestial bodies (13). Nevertheless, it also presents significant challenges that must be addressed to ensure the long-term sustainability of this new venture into space.

The concept of space sustainability

“Space sustainability” is the label for preoccupations and sets of practices intended to answer these challenges to the space environment. It is often described using terms such as “usability of outer space,” “continuity,” and “viability” of space activities (14). These expressions share a common goal: describing how humanity can continue “us[ing] outer space for peaceful purposes and socio-economic benefit over the long term” (15). They also emphasize that space sustainability is a complex, multi-dimensional concept requiring different approaches, which need to be carefully contextualized. As Aganaba-Jeanty notes, “[d]epending on the forum for discussion […] the concept of space sustainability is also used interchangeably with the following: (1) space security, which entails access to space and freedom from threats; (2) space stability addressing space situational awareness; (3) space safety, which is protection from all unreasonable levels of risk (primarily protection of humans or human activities); and (4) responsible uses of space” (16).
Because of its wide range of interpretations, “space sustainability” serves as an umbrella concept encompassing various, and potentially heterogeneous, aspects of space activities. This broad nature is reflected in the definition adopted by the UNCOPUOS in their LTS Guidelines (17). They define space sustainability as “the ability to maintain the conduct of space activities indefinitely into the future in a manner that realizes the objectives of equitable access to the benefits of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, to meet the needs of the present generations while preserving the outer space environment for future generations” (18). Such a definition is characterized by two opposed merits. On the one hand, it encompasses the vast field of space sustainability in a comprehensive view. On the other hand, precisely because of its large scope, this definition offers only general guidance and highlights the need for specific implementation policies to achieve sustainability in outer space.
A useful approach to clarify “space sustainability” is to draw on the established concept of “sustainable development,” which was first introduced at the international level by the WCED in the 1987 Brundtland Report (19). This concept has since been extensively explored in academic literature (20). Although interpretations vary, the WCED’s definition is commonly used as a foundation, stating that sustainable development is “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (21), a wording that is very similar to the definition adopted by UNCOPUOS some thirty years later. Incidentally, both definitions face similar criticisms for being broad and lacking specific practical guidance.
Nevertheless, the interpretation of the concept of sustainable development provides some practical directions beyond the necessity to adopt a long-term perspective. It is generally accepted that the concept rests on three interdependent pillars: social, economic, and environmental (22). It expresses “[the] need to reconcile economic development with protection of the environment” (23). Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that, to be sustainable, space activities must not only generate economic benefits but also carefully consider their environmental impact. Achieving this balance is crucial to ensuring that the outer space environment—and, in particular, the lunar surface and other celestial bodies targeted for mining activities—remains sustainable and viable for future generations.

The environmental dimension of lunar mining

Among the vast array of potential activities requiring careful examination of their environmental impact, lunar mining, as an integral component of In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU), stands out as calling for extra caution. As humankind advances its presence in space, exploiting lunar resources is becoming more reality than fiction. It is a fact that the Moon offers a wealth of natural resources, including helium-3, rare earth elements, and ice (24). These materials hold significant promise for supporting a variety of applications both in space and on Earth. For instance, lunar ice can be converted into water, oxygen, and hydrogen, which are essential for life support systems, food production, and rocket propellants, thus facilitating long-term human presence and exploration in space. Minerals present in lunar regolith can also be used to manufacture critical components for satellites, space stations, and other equipment, reducing reliance on Earth-based supply chains and potentially lowering costs. By providing the materials necessary for building infrastructure such as roads, power plants, and landing pads, lunar mining can thus pave the way for more permanent human settlements on the Moon and beyond (25). However, while the socioeconomic benefits of lunar mining are compelling, it is crucial to recognize the environmental implications of such endeavors.
The extraction of resources from the Moon is expected to cause notable physical disturbances to its surface as the process of removing large quantities of lunar regolith, particularly from resource-rich areas, may disrupt the Moon’s surface integrity, spreading dust over extensive regions. Such disturbances could negatively impact other lunar operations and scientific missions by covering solar panels, obstructing sensors, and contaminating equipment, thus impeding their functioning (26).
Focusing on the lunar case also draws attention to the often neglected fact that the problem of debris generated by space activities is not confined to Earth’s orbit. Mining activities on the Moon are likely to involve the deployment of multiple spacecraft, landers, and possibly satellites (27), increasing the number of debris in lunar orbit. Unlike Earth, however, the Moon lacks a substantial atmosphere that could facilitate the burning of debris upon re-entry. Several non-functioning space objects already occupy the lunar surface. They are leftovers from spacecraft and launch vehicles that crashed on the Moon or stopped functioning (28). With the expansion of activities on the ground, their number will also increase. Consequently, the accumulation of debris could pose significant challenges to safe navigation and operational effectiveness, complicating efforts to maintain sustainable space activities.
In addition to the physical hazards posed by debris, another area of environmental concern is the potential use of advanced mining technologies, which may involve chemical processes and reliance on nuclear powered instruments (29). The release of chemicals or accidental spills of toxic substances could lead to contamination of the lunar environment, thus affecting scientific research and the integrity of future missions. Moreover, the issue of resource over-exploitation is critical. Although lunar resources appear abundant, they are finite. Without careful management, excessive extraction will deplete these resources, limiting the Moon’s long-term utility and habitability as a base for future space exploration. Therefore, while the benefits of lunar mining are substantial, it is essential to legally address and mitigate its environmental impacts. The spirit of such mitigation is not to impede space activities on the Moon, including the exploitation of its resources. On the contrary, the issue is to ensure that such space activities are conducted in a sustainable and responsible manner to preserve humankind’s potential development in space. Instead of being viewed as a barrier or constraint to business interests, it should be seen as a significant strategic opportunity.

The strategic necessity for environmental sustainability

The necessity to preserve the outer space environment justifies the imperative of developing a legal framework for mining activities that includes specific environmental requirements. Historical examples from both terrestrial and space activities indicate that sustainable practices are unattainable in the absence of rigorous environmental oversight. On Earth, mining operations conducted without regard for environmental consequences have resulted in the contamination of sites and the depletion of critical resources, ultimately jeopardizing the profitability and viability of these enterprises. This principle extends to outer space, exemplified by the ongoing issue of space debris, where a lack of effective end-of-life planning for satellites has posed a serious threat to long-term access to outer space. This is why the establishment of a comprehensive legal framework is essential to prevent the pursuit of short-term gains from undermining the long-term sustainability of lunar mining activities. Prioritizing the sustainable exploitation of lunar resources ensures that these activities can potentially continue for centuries rather than being limited to a few decades.
Insisting on the necessity to implement a legal framework immediately raises the question: what should be included in this comprehensive legal framework? It is tempting, considering the radical novelty of mining activities, and consequently the novelty of the issues they entail, to envisage a “tabula rasa” approach favoring new legal norms and instruments. Implicit to this idea is the conviction that existing instruments are insufficient, if at all existing (30).
On both accounts—the necessity of a new legal approach and the limitation of existing norms—this reasoning can, and should, be challenged. It would be a more practical and effective approach to adapt and apply existing space governance mechanisms to foster environmentally sustainable lunar mining practices, as opposed to attempting to “reinvent the wheel”. And indeed, many elements of the wheel do exist and can be used. Instruments such as the Outer Space Treaty, space debris mitigation guidelines, and the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR)’s planetary protection policy, for instance, provide a solid foundation for establishing robust environmental standards. By tailoring these existing frameworks to the unique conditions of the lunar environment, the international community can facilitate lunar mining activities that not only deliver economic benefits but also preserve the Moon’s invaluable scientific and environmental heritage for future generations.

The path to environmental management of lunar mining activities

The primary task is to take stock of these existing instruments and identify those which are relevant. By integrating these mechanisms, a comprehensive governance framework can be established that explicitly incorporates environmental considerations. It is crucial to emphasize the importance of adopting a long-term perspective in planning lunar mining activities—one that not only includes the entire lifecycle of a mission (e.g., implementing end-of-life procedures) but also considers the needs of future generations.
A pivotal first step in this direction is to embed environmental considerations into the governing framework (1). Additionally, requiring a mandatory environmental impact assessment before the start of any mining activity can serve as an effective tool for mitigating potential environmental consequences (2). This could be implemented through a licensing process and maintained through ongoing supervision (3). Furthermore, it is essential to advocate for the rational management of natural resources to prevent the unsustainable depletion of lunar resources in the short to medium term (5). Lastly, encouraging compliance with existing best practices, as outlined in internationally recognized standards, can significantly enhance long-term sustainability by ensuring that all stakeholders adhere to the highest standards of (environmental) care (6).

Environmental integration in policies

Legal preoccupations tied to environmental sustainability in lunar mining are therefore more than just a long-term perspective; they require the direct integration of environmental considerations into the governing framework. A fundamental instrument for this purpose is Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty as it provides a solid foundation for protecting the outer space environment, including the Moon (31). In particular, Article IX explicitly establishes that States Parties must “pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration so as to avoid their harmful contamination.” Moreover, it mandates them “where necessary, [to adopt] appropriate measures for this purpose,” thereby imposing both a passive obligation to avoid contamination and an active obligation to implement necessary protective measures.
Beyond the legally binding framework put forward by the Outer Space Treaty, the international community has also developed several non-legally binding instruments addressing specific environmental issues (32). Notably, the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) and the UNCOPUOS have both established Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines to address the pressing issue of orbital debris (33). Similarly, COSPAR has formulated and regularly updates a planetary protection policy that aims to prevent the contamination of celestial bodies considered of interest for scientific investigations (34). Although these guidelines and policies are not legally binding in themselves, their implementation by a number of space agencies is reflective of a collective commitment to environmental stewardship.
Furthermore, it must be noted that several national legislations underscore the importance of environmental protection in space activities, with some States integrating requirements regarding space debris mitigation or the conduction of pre-mission mandatory environmental impact assessments (35). This is an important step towards making guidelines and policies that are not legally binding at the international level, binding by way of national instruments.

Environmental impact assessment

Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are well-established legal mechanisms on Earth, designed to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of proposed activities before their commencement. Widely recognized as critical tools for promoting sustainable development, EIAs are a cornerstone of international environmental law. Their primary objective is to furnish decision-makers with comprehensive information about the environmental implications of a project, enabling informed decision-making that accounts for both immediate and long-term impacts (36). The EIA process systematically identifies, predicts, evaluates, and proposes mitigation measures to address potential environmental effects before a project receives authorization.
The EIA process typically involves several distinct stages, including screening, information gathering, notification, and consultation (37). During these phases, the potential environmental impacts of a project are meticulously assessed, with considerations extending to effects on ecosystems, cultural heritage, and the overall sustainability of the environment (38). Public participation is often integral to this process, ensuring transparency and incorporating diverse viewpoints. While a thoroughly conducted EIA may not eliminate all environmental impacts, it plays a crucial role in identifying potential harm and managing it through appropriate mitigation strategies. This proactive approach is instrumental in minimizing adverse outcomes and provides a structured framework for ongoing monitoring and adaptive management, thereby supporting the responsible stewardship of environmental resources (39).
In the context of space activities, EIAs are not currently mandated by binding international space law. Nevertheless, analogous mechanisms have been developed to mitigate environmental risks associated with space operations. A prominent example is the formulation of non-legally binding guidelines for space debris mitigation. While not constituting formal EIAs, they reflect a similar commitment to proactive environmental stewardship. These guidelines recommend for instance that space operators develop “mitigation plans,” which should include, among other elements, an assessment and mitigation of risks related to space debris (40). Notably, Guideline 5.1 of the IADC articulates that no program, project, or experiment that will release objects in orbit should be planned “unless an adequate assessment can verify that the effect on the orbital environment, and the hazard to other operating spacecraft and orbital stages, is acceptably low in the long-term” (41).
Moreover, certain national space legislations have already incorporated EIA requirements into their regulatory frameworks, highlighting a progressive approach to considering both terrestrial and extraterrestrial environmental impacts. Belgium (42) and Finland (43), for instance, mandate the conduct of EIAs as part of their space activity licensing processes. These national initiatives represent a forward-looking approach to space governance, acknowledging that space activities can have profound and far-reaching implications for the environment both on Earth and beyond. By embedding EIA principles into space-related activities, these countries are setting a precedent within the global space community, advocating for more sustainable and responsible space exploration practices.

Licensing and monitoring mechanisms

EIAs are an essential feature to ensure that space actors adhere to environmentally sustainable practices in lunar mining as in any other space activity. Another essential piece of governance of space activities is the implementation of a robust authorization framework. It often takes the form of a licensing process for space activities. By integrating environmental requirements into the licensing process, sustainability considerations become an essential component of the authorization to engage in such activities. It is worthy of note that processes akin to EIAs are often found among such critical requirements.
The stringency of a licensing process can be discussed from a legal standpoint. It must be highlighted that the Outer Space Treaty does not explicitly mandate a licensing process. However, Article VI of the treaty does oblige States to authorize and continuously supervise non-governmental space activities under their jurisdiction (44). This provision primarily serves to hold the authorizing State internationally responsible should any breach of international obligations from private activities arise. At the very minimum, it is a strong encouragement for States to monitor and control private space activities effectively.
In practice, several States have interpreted the requirements of Article VI as necessitating the implementation of a licensing process (45) and these authorization regimes frequently incorporate procedural requirements related to environmental protection. We have mentioned the mandatory conduct of EIAs, but examples also include compliance with space debris mitigation guidelines (46). By embedding these environmental measures into the licensing framework, States can ensure that environmental considerations are addressed from the outset of any space activity, thus promoting responsible and sustainable exploitation of outer space, including lunar activities.
Another legal resource is to be found in Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty. As mentioned above, it mandates that States Parties continuously supervise the activities of private entities, which can be seen as akin to monitoring. This supervisory role could be leveraged to include activities such as verifying that satellites remain within their designated orbital paths or ensuring that environmental safeguards identified in EIAs are effectively implemented and adjusted as necessary to minimize environmental impact. Some national space legislations, such as those in Finland and Luxembourg (47), explicitly incorporate monitoring requirements of this sort. They often consist of periodic reporting on activities conducted during and after the mission. Such requirements can serve as a template for fostering sustainable practices by embedding environmental requirements into a licensing process for lunar mining activities.

Rational management of lunar resources

The rational management of resources is essential for preventing overexploitation and depletion of these resources. It is a major environmental concern associated with lunar mining. As such, mandating the rational management of natural resources appears as a critical element in promoting the environmental sustainability of lunar mining.
Rational resource management is not a foreign concept to space law. It largely predates the technological feasibility of lunar mining. Notably, Article 11 of the Moon Agreement explicitly articulates the “rational management of those resources” as one of the principal objectives of the international regime proposed to govern the exploitation of lunar resources (48). This provision reflects an early recognition of the need for sustainable management practices, even before lunar mining became a practical endeavor.
Although the Moon Agreement has faced criticism for its limited adoption—fewer than 20 Member States have ratified it, none of which are major spacefaring nations—it remains a significant instrument in space law. Even if limited as an enforceable treaty, the Agreement has served as a template for later discussions. Its provisions were adopted through consensus within UNCOPUOS, specifically underscoring the broad international agreement on the importance of rational resource management. Furthermore, the Moon Agreement is unique among the UN Space Treaties for directly addressing in-situ resource utilization, such as lunar mining. This indicates that from the outset, there was a collective understanding among Member States that sustainable management of space resources should be integral to any framework governing lunar mining. It would therefore be a natural extension of this commonality of views to incorporate rational management of resources into the regulatory framework for lunar mining. It would make it possible to mitigate the risk of short-term resource depletion and promote long-term sustainability. Such provision would ensure that resource extraction is conducted in a manner that balances current needs with the preservation of resources for future use, thereby supporting the viability of lunar mining operations over time.

Alignment on internationally recognized standards

To effectively safeguard the outer space environment, adherence to internationally recognized environmental standards presents a pragmatic solution, despite their inherently non-binding nature. Such standards belong to the vast field of what is usually labeled “soft law”. They may take the form of guidelines, norms, or policies. By their very nature, they do not impose legal obligations on States. Still, they represent a collective effort to address specific issues.
Soft law instruments often emerge from collaborative efforts among relevant stakeholders. A notable instance of this process is the development of guidelines for space debris mitigation in Earth orbit. In 2002, the IADC, a consortium of space agencies, established technical guidelines aimed at addressing space debris issues (49). These technical guidelines were later taken upon by UNCOPUOS and served as a foundational basis for the institution’s own set of political guidelines in 2007 (50). Accordingly, the adoption of such standards, or “best practices” is not the sole prerogative of States. Other private and public stakeholders can play a crucial role in shaping and promoting effective guidelines, leveraging their expertise and practical insights to address targeted challenges. In the case of lunar mining, this approach has the advantage of associating the private interests driving the industry to the development of norms to make this industry sustainable.
It is also worth underlining that, unlike treaties, which can be challenging to amend, codified standards or guidelines can be revised more readily to incorporate technological advancements and emerging best practices. For instance, both the IADC and COSPAR have updated their respective policies multiple times to reflect current scientific knowledge and effective practices (51). In a fast-changing context, this adaptability ensures that space actors are guided by the most relevant and effective measures for environmental protection.
Although the UN Space Treaties do not mandate compliance with best practices, the implementation of these standards at the national level demonstrates a proactive approach to environmental stewardship. States that integrate space debris mitigation measures and planetary protection requirements into their national legal frameworks set a precedent for responsible space activity. This alignment with internationally recognized best practices thus highlights a commitment to balancing socio-economic interests with the imperative of preserving the space environment.
Therefore, while the existing legal framework for outer space does not impose strict obligations regarding adherence to best practices, aligning with generally accepted environmental standards remains a crucial strategy in achieving space sustainability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as humanity continues to extend its activities beyond Earth’s orbit, our focus on achieving space sustainability must also evolve. It is no longer sufficient to limit our attention to the pressing issues in Earth’s orbit, such as orbital debris—though these challenges remain urgent. Orbital debris, currently one of the most significant environmental concerns in space, became a problem because it was not addressed early enough. Focusing solely on these issues without planning for future challenges, such as lunar mining operations, could set the stage for larger, more complex problems down the line.
Space sustainability, as defined by international bodies like UNCOPUOS, emphasizes the need to balance socio-economic benefits with environmental protection. As exploration moves beyond Earth’s orbit, this balance becomes even more critical. While lunar mining presents substantial economic potential, it also introduces risks. For this reason, it is essential to implement environmental oversight from the beginning. As unsustainable practices on Earth have demonstrated, neglecting environmental protection can lead to long-term damage. It is therefore necessary to develop a comprehensive legal framework that incorporates environmental standards to ensure that lunar mining can proceed responsibly and sustainably.
However, rather than developing entirely new legal instruments, a more efficient approach lies in adapting existing space governance frameworks. Instruments such as the Outer Space Treaty, space debris mitigation guidelines, and COSPAR’s planetary protection policy, already provide a solid foundation. Adapting these frameworks to the specific conditions of lunar mining would ensure that this new venture remains economically viable while preserving the Moon’s environmental and scientific integrity for future generations.

References

  1. Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UNGAOR, 62nd Sess., at Annex II §5, UN Doc. A/74/20 (2019).
  2. Walter Peeters, Evolution of the Space Economy: Government Space to Commercial Space and New Space, 19 ASTROPOLITICS 206, 208–210 (2021).
  3. Id.
  4. Peeters, supra note 2 at 208–210.
  5. Andrea Sommariva, The Evolution of Space Economy: The Role of the Private Sector and the Challenges for Europe, ISPI (2020), available online.
  6. Id.
  7. Top 3 Biggest Private Space Companies, EARTH.COM (2022), available online.
  8. See e.g. ispace 2040 Vision Movie, YOUTUBE (13.12.2017), https://ispace-inc.com/ (last visited Jul 8, 2021); Jonathan O’Callaghan, SpaceX’s Starlink Could Cause Cascades of Space Junk, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-starlink-could-cause-cascades-of-space-junk/ (last visited Sep 14, 2023).
  9. For instance, NASA is now relying on SpaceX’s launching capabilities to send astronauts to the ISS. SpaceX launches new crew to International Space Station, Le Monde, March 4, 2024, https://www.lemonde.fr/en/science/article/2024/03/04/spacex-launches-new-crew-to-international-space-station_6582294_10.html.
  10. See e.g. Pierre Lionnet, SpaceX and the categorical imperative to achieve low launch cost, SPACENEWS (2024), https://spacenews.com/spacex-and-the-categorical-imperative-to-achieve-low-launch-cost/.
  11. World Economic Forum, Chapter 5. Crowding and Competition in Space, in GLOBAL RISKS REPORT 2022 70 (2022), https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2022/in-full/chapter-5-crowding-and-competition-in-space/.
  12. See generally, Devanshu Jha et al., Safeguarding the final frontier: Analyzing the legal and technical challenges to mega-constellations, 9 Journal of Space Safety Engineering 636 (2022).
  13. PwC, Lunar market assessment: market trends and challenges in the development of a lunar economy, 27 (2021), https://space-economy.esa.int/article/119/pwcs-lunar-market-assessment-market-trends-and-challenges-in-the-development-of-a-lunar-economy.
  14. See e.g. Rada Popova & Volker Schaus, The Legal Framework for Space Debris Remediation as a Tool for Sustainability in Outer Space, 5 Aerospace 55, 55 (2018); M. Palmroth et al., Toward Sustainable Use of Space: Economic, Technological, and Legal Perspectives, 57 SPACE POLICY 101428, 101428 (2021); Annie Handmer & Steven Freeland, The Use of Law to Address Space Debris Mitigation and Remediation: Looking Through a Science and Technology Lens, 87 JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE 375, 385 (2022); Christopher J. Newman & Mark Williamson, Space Sustainability: Reframing the Debate, 46 SPACE POLICY, VOLUME 46, P. 30-37. 30, 31 (2018).
  15. Ray A. Williamson, Assuring the sustainability of space activities, 28 SPACE POLICY 154, 155 (2012).
  16. Timiebi Aganaba-Jeanty, Space Sustainability and the Freedom of Outer Space, 14 ASTROPOLITICS 1, 11 (2016).
  17. See LTS Guidelines in COPUOS Report (2019), UN Doc. A/74/20, 74th Sess. Supplement 2.0, Annex II.
  18. Id., preamble, §5.
  19. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Chapter 2, para. 1, in Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, UNGAOR, 42nd Sess., Supp. 20, Annex, UN Doc. A/42/427 (1987) [“Brundtland report”].
  20. See e.g., Sustainable development in international and national law, (Hans Christian Bugge & Christina Voigt eds., 2008); Klaus Bosselmann, The principle of sustainability: Transforming law and governance (2016); International law and sustainable develoment: Past achievements and future challenges (Alan E. Boyle & David Freestone eds., 2001).
  21. Brundtland report, supra note 19, Chapter 2, §1.
  22. Hugh Wilkins, The Integration of the Pillars of Sustainable Development: A Work in Progress, 4 MCGILL INT’L J. SUST. DEV. L. & POL’Y 163 (2008).
  23. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia) (Judgement), 1997 ICJ Rep. 7 (Sept. 25), §140.
  24. Ben Varozza, An Overview of Lunar Resources for Mining and Extraction, in 2024 REGIONAL STUDENT CONFERENCES (2024), https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2024-84646.
  25. PwC, supra note 13 at 27.
  26. M. Hirabayashi et al., Electrostatic dust remediation for future exploration of the Moon, 207 ACTA ASTRONAUTICA 392, 392–393 (2023).
  27. See e.g. iSpace’s vision for the Moon, ispace, Expand our planet. Expand our future., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cMEJTnPq-I.
  28. Mark Williamson, Planetary spacecraft debris: the case for protecting the space environment, 42 445, 447 (2000).
  29. Ellen Bausback, NASA’s Fission Surface Power Project Energizes Lunar Exploration, NASA (2024)https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/glenn/nasas-fission-surface-power-project-energizes-lunar-exploration/.
  30. Kriti Gautam Bhattacharya, The Viability of Space Mining in the Current Legal Regime, 16 ASTROPOLITICS 216, 222 (2018).
  31. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, entered into force Oct. 10, 1967, art. XI, 610 UNTS 205.
  32. See generally, Gabrielle Leterre, Protecting the last frontier: Space mining and environmental sustainability 115–160 (2024).
  33. IADC, IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, IADC Steering Group and Working Group 4, IADC-02-01 Rev. 3 (2021).
  34. Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, UNGAOR, 62nd Sess., Supp. No. 20, at 117-118 and Annex, UN Doc. A/62/20 (2007).
  35. See e.g., Loi N° 2008-518 du 3 juin 2008 relative aux opérations spatiales, art. 5, No. 2008-518 (2008) (FR); Act on Space Activities, art. 10, 63/2018 (2018) (FI).
  36. Patricia W. Birnie, Alan E. Boyle & Catherine Redgwel, International law and the environment 165 (3rd ed. 2009).
  37. For a comprehensive overview of the different phases, see Neil Craik, The international law of environmental impact assessment: Process, substance and integration 132–174 (2008).
  38. Lotta Viikari, The environmental element in space law assessing the present and charting the future 268–269 (2008).
  39. Leterre, supra note 31 at 103–111.
  40. IADC Guideline 4(2), supra note 32
  41. Id., Guideline 5(1).
  42. Law of 17 September 2005 on The Activities of Launching, Flight Operation or Guidance of Space Objects, consolidated text as revised by the Law of 1 December 2013, art. 8 (B.O.J. of 15 January 2014) (BE).
  43. Act on Space Activities, art. 10, 63/2018 (2018) (FI).
  44. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, entered into force Oct. 10, 1967, art. 6, 610 UNTS 205.
  45. See e.g. Loi du 20 juillet 2017 sur l’exploration et l’utilisation des ressources de l’espace, Mémorial A No 674, 28 juillet 2017 (LU); Loi N° 2008-518 du 3 juin 2008 relative aux opérations spatiales, No. 2008-518 (2008) (FR); Act on Space Activities, 63/2018 (2018) (FI).
  46. Id., French Space Act, Law of 17 September 2005 on The Activities of Launching, Flight Operation or Guidance of Space Objects, consolidated text as revised by the Law of 1 December 2013, (B.O.J. of 15 January 2014) (BE).
  47. See the Luxembourg Space Resources Law and the Finnish Space Act supra note 44.
  48. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, entered into force July 11, 1984, arts. 11§5 and 11§7, 1363 UNTS 3.
  49. IADC Guidelines, supra note 32
  50. UNCOPUOS Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines, supra note 33.
  51. The IADC last updated its space debris mitigation guidelines in 2021 and COSPAR published an updated version of its planetary protection policy in 2024.