Mining the Cosmos: Geopolitics, Ethics, and Law in the Race for Space Resources

Space Mining And The Struggle For The High Ground

For a long time, mining asteroids or digging the moon for fuel sounded like a casual fantasy for science fiction fans. Now there are feasibility studies, national laws, working groups at the United Nations, and even long term purchase contracts for helium three from the lunar surface. Space mining has quietly moved from imagination to an early and messy pre history.

The question is no longer only whether it is technically possible. The deeper question is who will set the rules, who will benefit, and how this new industry will change power relations between states, companies and societies. The geopolitics of space mining is already taking shape, even before the first bucket of regolith is processed on the moon.

The Lure Of Off World Resources

Space mining attracts attention because the numbers look almost absurd. Many near Earth asteroids are rich in water, metals and volatiles. Some small metallic asteroids are estimated to contain tens of billions of dollars worth of platinum group metals at current prices (Harvard International Review 2022).

Water is even more important than platinum in the medium term. It can be split into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket propellant, used as radiation shielding and consumed by crews. A detailed techno economic study suggests that mining water from asteroids and selling it in orbit could already be economically viable under certain assumptions about launch costs and demand, and that this is easier than extracting base or precious metals (Abbasi 2018, Hein 2020). If depots in Earth orbit or around the moon can buy propellant made in space, deep space missions no longer need to lift all their fuel out of Earth gravity. That is a strategic shift.

Helium three is another part of the story. It is rare on Earth yet more abundant in lunar soil. For decades it appeared mainly in speculative discussions about future fusion reactors. Now companies such as Interlune have signed commercial contracts to deliver helium three from the moon for use in ultra cold refrigerators that support quantum computing, even though large scale mining has not yet started in reality (Washington Post 2025). The details may change, but the pattern is clear. The moon is no longer seen only as a place to plant flags or test landers. It is being framed as a resource province.

Alongside these headline elements, there are more mundane but essential materials. Lunar regolith can be turned into concrete like building material, metals and glass. Ice in permanently shadowed craters can support bases at the poles. The same is true for some asteroids. Space mining therefore promises not only exports to Earth but also in situ resource use to support infrastructure in orbit and on other worlds.

Behind the excitement sits a very terrestrial political economy. If asteroid derived metals flood the market, export dependent economies on Earth could suffer. Analysts have warned that a single company controlling a major resource flow from space could gain the power to destabilise commodity markets and undermine countries that rely on mining revenues today (Harvard International Review 2022). This is one reason why space mining cannot be treated as a purely technical or commercial matter. It is tied directly to questions of inequality and dependency on Earth.

From Cold War Treaties To Extraction Rights

The legal framework for outer space was written long before anyone seriously expected private companies to bring back asteroid cargoes. The core text is the nineteen sixty seven Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, commonly called the Outer Space Treaty. It declares outer space to be the province of all humankind, prohibits national appropriation of celestial bodies by claims of sovereignty or occupation, and protects the freedom of exploration and use by all states. It also makes states internationally responsible for national activities in space, including those carried out by private actors.

For decades lawyers debated whether this prohibition on appropriation of territories also bans the appropriation of extracted resources. One school argued that taking and owning resources is a form of appropriation and therefore unlawful. Another school interpreted the treaty as banning sovereignty claims over celestial bodies but not over materials removed from them. A widely cited article by Wrench concludes that the non appropriation principle does not by itself prevent resource extraction, so long as states do not claim parts of space as national territory (Wrench 2019).

A later treaty, the nineteen seventy nine Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, often called the Moon Agreement, tried to go further. It treated the moon and its resources as the common heritage of humankind and called for an international regime to govern exploitation and share benefits. Major spacefaring states never ratified it, so it remained symbolically important but practically weak (Belfer Center 2025).

As technology advanced and private ventures emerged, several states started to write their own space resource laws. The United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, passed in twenty fifteen, states that a United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including the right to possess, own, transport, use and sell it, while also insisting that the United States is not claiming sovereignty over any celestial body (Public Law 114 90 2015, Tronchetti 2016).

Luxembourg followed with its twenty seventeen Law on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources, which begins with the blunt statement that space resources are capable of being owned and establishes a licensing regime for commercial missions (Luxembourg Law 2017, Deman 2017). The United Arab Emirates and Japan also adopted national legislation to authorise and supervise space resource activities by their companies in line with their reading of the Outer Space Treaty (UNOOSA 2024, AALCO 2025).

Parallel to these national moves, the United States led the creation of the Artemis Accords, a non binding set of principles for cooperation in lunar and planetary exploration. Several dozen states have now signed. Section ten of the Accords explicitly states that extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article Two of the Outer Space Treaty, and calls for contracts and other legal instruments relating to space resources to be consistent with that treaty (Artemis Accords 2020, ESIL Reflection 2024, McKeown 2022).

This interpretation is disputed by some scholars and by states that worry about a gradual erosion of the non appropriation principle. Critics argue that recognising property rights over space resources for companies from a handful of early movers, without a broader multilateral agreement, goes against the spirit of space as a domain that should benefit all humankind (Lintner 2016). The Luxembourg law in particular has been described as resting on a contentious relationship with the international framework (Deman 2017).

In response to these tensions, the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space created a Working Group on the Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities under its Legal Subcommittee. This group is now producing a draft set of recommended principles for space resource activities, based on submissions from states and observers, including Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation (UNOOSA 2024, European Union 2025). The process is slow but important. It is one of the few arenas where states that are not yet active in space mining can still shape the basic rules.

An Industry That Exists Mostly On Powerpoint, But Not Only

The actual history of space mining companies so far is a story of impatience, over optimism and pivot. Planetary Resources, founded in two thousand nine and backed by high profile investors, set out to develop small telescopes and eventually mine asteroids. Despite extensive media coverage and even investment from Luxembourg, it struggled to secure enough financing and was finally acquired by a blockchain company in two thousand eighteen, with its remaining hardware auctioned two years later (Planetary Resources 2019). Deep Space Industries went through similar turbulence before being absorbed by another firm.

These failures did not kill the idea. They simply underlined that profitable space mining requires a sequence of steps. Prospecting missions must identify and characterise viable targets. Technologies for capture, anchoring, drilling and processing must be tested in microgravity. Business models must connect off world supply to real demand, whether in Earth orbit, on the moon or on Earth. Scientific work on profitability models for asteroid mining emphasises that water provision for in space use might be the first realistic market, while large scale metal extraction and return to Earth faces much higher barriers (Hein 2020, Abbasi 2018).

Launch providers like SpaceX and Blue Origin sit on another piece of the puzzle. They are not mining companies, but their rockets and possible future vehicles make it financially conceivable to place heavy mining and processing hardware in useful orbits. National space agencies also play a role. NASA missions such as OSIRIS REx and Japanese missions such as Hayabusa and Hayabusa two have demonstrated rendezvous, sampling and return from small bodies, providing experience and data that private actors can later build on.

On the lunar side, a growing number of missions aim at the south polar region where orbital data suggest deposits of water ice in permanently shadowed craters. American, Chinese, Indian, Russian and allied missions all target this region, in part because of the resource potential and in part because of its value for long term bases.

Technological trends in data and automation matter as well. Remote sensing, robotics and artificial intelligence are already used to monitor mines on Earth. Similar techniques can help locate, classify and manage space resources, although distances and communication lags introduce extra complexity. Recent studies discuss how artificial intelligence and satellite remote sensing might be combined to transform space resource management by optimising exploration, extraction and transport in harsh and remote environments (Garcia del Real 2024).

So far the most concrete commercial move is not asteroid mining but the previously mentioned helium three purchase agreement. Interlune expects to dig lunar soil, heat it to release trapped gases, separate helium three and ship it to Earth to meet specific industrial demand (Washington Post 2025). Whether this particular project succeeds or fails, it shows that contracts and financial flows around space resources are beginning to appear before full scale extraction.

Emerging Fault Lines In The Politics Of Off World Resources

Space mining touches several sensitive nerves at once.

First, there is the classic problem of resource competition. If particular asteroids or regions of the lunar poles contain especially accessible deposits of water or metals, they become strategic assets. Even if no state claims territory, control over landing sites, infrastructure and orbits can confer de facto priority access. The Artemis Accords introduce the idea of safety zones around operations to prevent interference. Supporters argue that clearly announced activity zones enhance safety and transparency. Critics fear they will in practice resemble exclusive areas that exclude others from key locations (McKeown 2022).

Second, there is the tension between early movers and late comers. Legal scholars have warned that if a few states push ahead with national space resource laws and bilateral accords, they may lock in a regime where companies from those states enjoy most benefits, while other countries are presented with a fait accompli (Lintner 2016, Wrench 2019). The title of one commentary, who dares wins, captures the idea that property rights in space might be dictated by those willing to move first and accept legal risks (Chicago Journal of International Law 2018).

Third, concerns about militarisation colour discussions of space resource infrastructure. Refuelling depots, lunar bases and tugs that move heavy objects can have dual uses. They can make exploration and science easier. They can also support military logistics, deployment of weapons or the removal and repositioning of other states satellites. Recent reports by regional legal bodies express concern over the growing weaponisation of outer space through anti satellite tests and call for enhanced legal oversight and new frameworks (AALCO 2025). In that context, any large industrial activity in cislunar space will attract strategic scrutiny.

Fourth, environmental and cultural questions add another layer of friction. Astronomers worry that extensive lunar dust clouds raised by mining could degrade optics at observatories. Planetary scientists and heritage advocates call for the protection of certain sites, such as Apollo landing locations or areas with unique geological features, as part of the common record of humankind. Emerging discussions of space environmental ethics suggest that some parts of the solar system should be treated as scientific parks or wilderness areas, with strict limits on disturbance (Space Environmental Ethics 2025, Space Resource Ethics 2025).

Finally, there is a geopolitical North South divide. Developing countries that are not yet active in space fear that the move from rhetoric about the province of all humankind toward concrete property rights for private actors will repeat past patterns where powerful states capture valuable commons. European Union statements in United Nations debates acknowledge these worries and stress that work on space resource principles should ensure that exploration and use of outer space remain accessible to all states, regardless of their economic or scientific capability, and that information exchange and benefit sharing are strengthened (European Union 2025).

Ethics Beyond Ownership: Preservation, Harm And Equity

Much of the legal discussion focusses on ownership and appropriation. Ethical debates go further. They ask whether every technically possible extraction should be pursued, and who has the moral authority to decide when a distant landscape can be disrupted.

One concern is preservation of celestial environments for science. If mining scrapes away regolith, alters crater walls or covers surfaces with machinery, it can destroy evidence about the early solar system, impact histories and planetary formation. For some scientists, these records are more valuable than any cargo of ice or metals. They argue for constraints on where and how extraction may occur, particularly in areas that hold unique information.

Another ethical issue is contamination. Space mining operations could introduce terrestrial microbes, chemicals or debris into relatively pristine environments. Planetary protection guidelines already govern missions that might affect the possibility of life detection on Mars or icy moons. As mining moves closer to reality, similar thinking will be needed for resource projects, especially if they operate in regions with possible volatile rich deposits.

Environmental impact does not stop at the surface. The risk of orbital debris is a known problem in Earth orbit. Large scale industrial operations around the moon or in asteroid belts could increase the number of objects and fragments in cislunar space. Collisions at orbital velocity generate clouds of debris that can threaten other missions. Responsible operations would need to minimise waste, design hardware for de orbit or safe disposal, and coordinate trajectories with other actors.

Equity completes the ethical triangle. Even if one accepts that private and national actors can legitimately own space resources, the question of distribution remains. Who gains, who bears the risks and who has a voice in rule making. Some proposals draw on analogies with the International Seabed Authority, which manages deep seabed mining under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That regime, although contested, formally aims to share benefits from seabed resources beyond national jurisdiction with all states. Advocates of a similar approach for space argue that at least a fraction of profits from resource exploitation beyond Earth should contribute to global public goods, such as climate adaptation, health or education in poorer countries.

Others resist global mechanisms, fearing bureaucracy and slow decision making. They prefer a light framework that leaves room for bilateral agreements and market forces, possibly topped up by voluntary commitments to fund development. In the middle sits the current United Nations working group approach, which seeks to identify basic principles that could command wide support without freezing the evolution of practice (UNOOSA 2024, ESIL Reflection 2024).

Building A Governance Regime In Real Time

Because technology and investment are moving ahead while law is still unsettled, governance for space mining will likely grow in layers.

At the foundation lies the Outer Space Treaty, which almost all states have joined. Its core rules on non appropriation, peaceful use and state responsibility are not going away. They constrain how far any national law or private contract can go. Interpretive battles about what counts as appropriation or peaceful use are inevitable, but they will play out within this framework.

The next layer consists of national laws like the United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act and the Luxembourg law. These laws create concrete rights and obligations for companies under their jurisdiction and impose licensing and supervision duties on governments. Other states watch them closely because they can serve as templates or provoke counter moves.

A third layer is formed by voluntary or political instruments such as the Artemis Accords. These establish expectations about transparency, interoperability of systems, registration of objects, mitigation of debris and consultation around safety zones. Signatories agree on a reading of the Outer Space Treaty that treats resource extraction as permitted so long as sovereignty over territory is not asserted. Non signatories, including some major powers, criticise the Accords as an attempt to build a club outside United Nations treaty processes, yet even they sometimes borrow language from them.

Above this sits the slow multilateral work in bodies such as the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. The Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities is drafting recommended principles that could one day harden into binding rules. European Union statements emphasise the importance of this work and encourage all states to contribute (European Union 2025).

Some analysts argue that the Outer Space Treaty system needs a more formal Conference of the Parties, similar to the climate regime, to monitor implementation, clarify interpretations and adopt protocols on issues such as space resource activities, debris mitigation or military uses (Belfer Center 2025). For now there is little appetite among major powers to reopen the basic treaty, since any formal renegotiation could threaten the principles they rely on.

Civil society networks and expert communities add another layer, proposing model codes of conduct, ethics frameworks and technical standards. They help keep debates open, highlight risks that might be ignored in state centred forums, and pressure both governments and companies to account for environmental and social impacts.

In practice, for the next decade or two the governance of space mining will probably look like a patchwork. Specific missions will operate under national licences, guided by widely accepted but non binding principles and cautious of provoking diplomatic pushback. Meanwhile, UN working groups will refine language and states will gradually converge or polarise on key questions such as benefit sharing, environmental protection and safety zones.

Possible Futures For The Politics Of Space Mining

Because the industry is still in its infancy, several very different futures are imaginable.

In one scenario, a few well funded companies, backed by supportive states, demonstrate economically viable water extraction from the lunar poles and near Earth asteroids. Propellant depots in orbit become routine. Lunar bases are supplied largely from local resources. A small number of actors dominate this infrastructure and use it to reinforce their wider influence in space. Commodity flows to Earth remain limited, so disruption of terrestrial markets is modest. The main geopolitical tensions concern military applications and exclusionary practices at key sites.

In a more aggressive scenario, rapid advances in robotics and automation make it profitable to return metals and rare elements to Earth in significant volumes. New wealth accumulates in firms that control space mining and transport chains. Some resource dependent countries face price collapses and loss of revenue. Friction grows around taxation, regulation and claims that those who benefit from off world resource extraction owe compensation or support to those who lose out. Disputes in United Nations forums over the meaning of common heritage and benefit for all intensify.

In a cooperative scenario, early movers accept that they operate in a legally and politically sensitive domain and take the initiative to build inclusive institutions. They support a multilateral fund fed by a small levy on space resource operations, open parts of their infrastructure to other users on transparent terms, and back strong environmental rules. States that are not yet active in space accept that this arrangement is better than either a free for all or a stalled regime, and broader legitimacy stabilises the system.

In a disappointing scenario, technical difficulties and weak demand delay profitable space mining beyond current planning horizons. Companies burn through capital and fold. Governments quietly walk back some of their bold rhetoric. Legal debates continue but lose urgency. In the background, however, relevant technologies such as lunar landers, prospecting instruments and autonomous construction continue to mature for other purposes, so that another wave of attempts may come later.

Real life will probably combine elements of all these paths. Contracts for helium three, national space resource laws and UN working groups already coexist. The key point is that choices made now, about how to interpret treaties, how to structure property rights, how to include or exclude less powerful states and how to treat celestial environments, will shape which future becomes more likely.

Why Space Mining Geopolitics Matters Before The First Mine Opens

It is tempting to dismiss space mining as premature. After all, not a single commercial asteroid mine exists. No lunar industrial complex is operating. Most companies in the field have stalled or pivoted. Yet geopolitics often takes shape ahead of material facts. Law, expectations and institutional habits formed now will influence behaviour once technology catches up.

The Outer Space Treaty was written when only two superpowers had the capacity to reach orbit. Its designers nevertheless created language that still constrains behaviour in a far more crowded space environment. Similarly, national laws and informal accords on space resources, even if they feel aspirational today, will frame how future ventures are judged and contested.

The deeper reason this topic matters is that it forces a reckoning with questions that reach beyond law into political philosophy. If parts of the solar system become extensions of human economic activity, will they be treated purely as extractive frontiers, like nineteenth century colonies, or as shared environments where limits and obligations apply. Will benefits from this new frontier reinforce existing inequalities or partially correct them. Will the infrastructure built for space mining make war in space easier or will it be tied tightly to peaceful use.

Space mining is not only about metals and ice. It is about how humankind chooses to extend itself into a region that earlier generations imagined as an untouched backdrop. The choices made now, in treaty rooms, national legislatures, company board meetings and expert workshops, will decide whether the age of off world extraction becomes just another chapter in a long story of unequal exploitation, or an experiment in doing things differently when the frontier is no longer on Earth.

Abbasi, Taha. Two thousand eighteen. Investigating Economic Potential of Asteroid Mineral Resources. McGill University.
AALCO Secretariat. Two thousand twenty five. Legal Issues in Outer Space. New Delhi.
Artemis Accords. Two thousand twenty. Principles for Cooperation in the Civil Exploration and Use of the Moon Mars Comets and Asteroids for Peaceful Purposes.
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Two thousand twenty five. Governing Outer Space A Conference of the Parties for Space. Cambridge Massachusetts.
Chicago Journal of International Law. Two thousand eighteen. Who Dares Wins How Property Rights in Space Could Be Dictated by Countries Willing to Make the First Move.
Deman, Thomas. Two thousand seventeen. Luxembourg Law on Space Resources Rests on Contentious Relationship with International Framework. Leuven.
European Union. Two thousand twenty five. Statement to the United Nations General Assembly Fourth Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. New York.
Garcia del Real, Javier. Two thousand twenty four. Unlocking the Future of Space Resource Management. Energy Policy.
Harvard International Review. Two thousand twenty two. Economics of the Stars The Future of Asteroid Mining and the Global Economy. Cambridge Massachusetts.
Hein, Andreas. Two thousand twenty. A Techno Economic Analysis of Asteroid Mining. Acta Astronautica.
Lintner, Alexandra. Two thousand sixteen. Extraterrestrial Extraction The International Implications of Resource Mining.
Luxembourg Law. Two thousand seventeen. Law of Twenty July Two thousand seventeen on the Exploration and Use of Space Resources. Luxembourg.
McKeown, Brett. Two thousand twenty two. Artemis Accords Are Safety Zones Practical for Long Term Space Governance. Air and Space Law.
NASA. Various years. Lunar Resource Prospector Studies. Washington DC.
Planetary Resources. Two thousand nineteen. One Year After Planetary Resources Faded Space Mining Retains Its Appeal. Redmond.
Public Law One hundred fourteen ninety. Two thousand fifteen. United States Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act. Washington DC.
Space Environmental Ethics. Two thousand twenty five. Space Environmental Ethics.
Space Resource Ethics. Two thousand twenty five. Space Resource Ethics.
Tronchetti, Fabio. Two thousand sixteen. Title Four Space Resource Exploration and Utilization. Air and Space Law.
United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Two thousand twenty four. Working Group on Legal Aspects of Space Resource Activities. Vienna.
Wrench, J Gabriel. Two thousand nineteen. Non Appropriation No Problem The Outer Space Treaty Is Ready for Asteroid Mining. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law.
Washington Post. Two thousand twenty five. Moon Helium Deal Is Biggest Purchase of Natural Resources from Space.