On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon. His phrase “that's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind” is memorable. Later, Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted the United States flag on the surface of the only natural satellite of Earth The flag was erected in the Sea of Tranquility about three and a half hours into their extravehicular activity (EVA) or "moonwalk," which occurred shortly after they landed.
The practice of planting flags to claim property has been used throughout history. Historically, explorers and colonizers used flag-planting to claim "unclaimed" land (often disregarding indigenous populations). This signaled to other nations that the territory was under the control of a specific sovereign. Flags define areas of influence. A national flag on an embassy, vessel, or military unit means that it is subject to the laws and protection of that nation, regardless of where it is physically located. There are “curious” cases where two flags indicate the control not only of a specific state but also the belonging to a very sophisticated transnational economic integration process, i. e. the European Union whose flag flies alongside the respective’s EU member country.
Besides the European Union intention to transcend nation-states symbols, flags are used to show pride, strengthen a sense of belonging in a territory, and declare a continued presence. In warfare or maritime scenarios, flags identify allegiance from a distance, designating what is friendly, neutral, or enemy territory or property. More important, the flag acts as an extension of the state. Planting it or flying it over a contested area is a way of marking it as part of a country's territory.
As recently as August 2007, Russia planted a titanium Russian flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole. The so-called Arktika 2007 expedition used two mini-submarines (Mir-1 and Mir-2) to deposit the flag 14 000 feet (say 4 300+ meters) below the surface, aiming to support Russia's claim to the resource-rich Lomonosov Ridge. Of course this move was viewed as a symbolic gesture of Arctic ownership by Russia rather than a legally recognized action under international law.
With that in mind: the fact that the US was the first country to plant a flag on the Moon, means the Moon belongs to the United States? This is not a tricky question. In 1967, two years before Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins participated in the history Apolo 11 Mission, the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, was negotiated and established that the Moon must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. Key principles include banning national appropriation, prohibiting weapons of mass destruction deployment, ensuring free exploration, and requiring international cooperation.
10 years before the Outer Space Treaty was signed, the Soviet Union had inaugurated the space race by putting in orbit the first artificial satellite in history, the Sputnik. Then the second Sputnik carried on board Laika, the first dog in space. Then Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth on April 12, 1961, becoming the first human in space. And then Valentina Tereshkova orbited the Earth from June 16 to June 19, 1963, becoming the first woman in space, completing 48 orbits in roughly 71 hours (nearly three days).
The US instead focused on a mission to the Moon and planned on sending a human being to the natural satellite of Earth. The space race was costly both in material and human resources. The Soviet Union did not develop a Moon mission because the space program was dominated by the armed forces that saw no need to get involved in such an expensive adventure. Besides, the main reason to put the first Sputnik in orbit was to test the R7 rocket, a modified version of the Von Braun rockets developed by the Nazis in WWII. The R7 was relevant because if capable of putting the Sputnik in orbit, then it could be also used to carry intercontinental ballistic missiles in case a confrontation erupts between the Soviets and the Americans.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was born precisely in November 1957 and US president Dwight Eisenhower addressed the nation while the Soviet Union was succeeding with the Sputniks. Many moons -literally- have passed ever since. The missions to the Moon were abandoned by the US after Apollo 17, launched on December 7, 1972, and concluded on December 19, 1972. It was until April 2026, 54 years after the Apolo 17, men and women -all American, by the way- returned to Moon with the Artemis II mission.
The fact that the US and no other country reached the Moon between December 1972 and April 2026, does not mean the appropriation of the celestial body was settled. On the contrary: although 118 countries are parties to the 1967 the Outer Space Treaty, including the Soviet Union and the United States, new actors, including the so-called Space Barons -say Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson and Paul Allen, among others- put private activities in the center of space exploration and exploitation, challenging the principles established by the mentioned treaty.
There are new space powers, in sharp contrast with the Cold War times when the USSR and the US had a monopoly on space activities. It is true the European Communities created the European Space Agency (ESA) on May 30, 1975. Yet today there is several countries including Brazil, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Japan, the People’s Republic of China (PR China), India, United Kingdom, France, Israel, Iran, North and South Korea and Nez Zealand, among others, with space capabilities. These countries have space programs at different stages of development, but clearly PR China and India are taking the lead.
The more countries get involved in space activities, the more space debris are generated. Space debris, or "space junk," is a growing crisis of millions of around 2 000 000 untrackable, high-speed objects in Earth's orbit, threatening active satellites, manned missions, and future space exploration. This orbital pollution, including old rocket parts and satellites, tools, paint flakes and such, causes collisions and risks a chain reaction, known as the Kessler syndrome, which could render crucial orbits unusable for generations.
The Kessler Syndrome is a theoretical scenario proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler in 1978, describing a runaway chain reaction where the density of space debris in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) becomes so high that collisions between objects cause a cascade effect, generating more debris and rendering space usage impossible. Some objects in LEO have already collided, increasing the amount of debris. Technologies to clean LEO are in development but the situation is getting worse as countries and private companies carry out more and more space activities.
Then comes the weaponization of space. The main reason to sign the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was to prevent the deployment of nuclear arms in space. This is specifically forbidden in the treaty. Yet today there are new technologies such as kinetic weapons, lasers and other sophisticated “conventional” arms, not covered by the treaty.
Now, the Moon and other space bodies have been the subject of presumed “appropriation” by individuals. Take Dennis Hope as an example. This American citizen created Lunar Embassy Corp. and claimed the Moon in 1980 by sending a letter to the United Nations, subsequently selling millions of 1-acre plots to people -at 20 US dollars per acre-, including celebrities like Nicole Kidman, Ronald Reagan, Tom Cruise, Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. These sales are not recognized by international law. Sounds crazy? What about Martin Juergens? He is a German citizen who claims the Moon belonged to his family, gifted by Prussian King Frederick the Great in 1756. To make things more interesting take Richard Garriott as another example. This man purchased the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover and claimed ownership of the vehicle and surrounding area, though not the entire Moon.
Besides these individuals, the role of private corporations is worrisome. Although international space law has evolved, many understand it mainly applies to states, not companies neither individuals. The role of private corporations deserves a lot of attention, because their space activities are already threatening space security on Earth and beyond.
Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites create light pollution that prevent NASA, ROSCOSMOS, the Hubble and other telescopes, from having clear images from space. LEO is the region of space currently populated by more than 9 000 of Musk’s Starlink satellites and there are plans to launch another half a million in the years to come. As experts suggest, filling the sky with tens of thousands of satellites is not a good idea. It is a challenge for ground-based telescopes, but you can’t escape that problem even by going into space, as the Hubble images of space have shown.
Yet, speaking about the Moon, the prospects for Space mining are of concern. The 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies is a treaty which states that the Moon and its resources are the "common heritage of mankind." It prohibits national appropriation (ownership), mandates exclusive peaceful use, forbids military bases/weapons, and dictates an international regime to govern resource exploitation. It complements the provisions of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Yet, contrary to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the 1979 Moon Treaty has only 17 parties and no major space power has signed it.
There are several companies involved in developing mining activities in celestial bodies like the Moon and asteroids. Resources thought to be present on the Moon include uranium, potassium, phosphorus, water ice, platinum group metals and helium-3. The last of these is a rare isotope that could help power relatively clean fusion energy in future. The real problem with these activities -let aside the technical difficulties associated with mining in outer space- is that if enough material were removed to significantly reduce the Moon's mass, the gravitational force it exerts on Earth would decrease. This would lead to lower high tides, which could affect coastal ecosystems and marine life that depend on the tidal cycle, not to mention the Moon would change its orbit.
As seen, the issue of flags and ownership are not a joke. International space law needs an update to address current challenges, especially because now countries are approving legislation to allow for space activities and Moon and celestial bodies missions outside the international space regime. To make it clear: the Moon is not owned by the US. However more individuals, companies and states claim they have the right to the Moon and its resources.
Currently the US leads the establishment of a new set of guiding principles around lunar exploration - and lunar exploitation. The so-called Artemis Accords state that extracting and using resources on the Moon should be done in a way that complies with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, although it suggests some new rules might be needed. More than 40 countries have so far signed up to these non-binding agreements -Mexico included-, but PR China is notably absent from the list. Russia is not part of Artemis either. ROSCOSMOS space agency officials have criticized Artemise as too "US-centric" and have declined to join the partnership. Russia is instead pursuing a separate lunar partnership with PR China.
It seems is the return of great power geopolitics that is behind the renewed interest in space exploration -and possible exploitation. Today space is crucial for daily-life activities, and it may become more prominent as time goes by, and as resources on Earth are exhausted. Yet some lessons deserved attention: mankind has created an environmental cataclysm on Earth as never seen before. Thus, by accessing outer space one may expect more environmentally friendly activities in space, instead of only depleting resources on Earth and then moving to the Moon and other celestial bodies to replicate this catastrophe.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
