Lunar Takes #1: How can countries and companies better coordinate Moon missions for mutual benefit? Experts weigh in.
AUTHOR: JATAN MEHTA
“Bring together data from different sources to get the most complete picture.”
The last ten years have seen a global interest in lunar exploration, with multiple countries sending diverse surface and orbital missions. Many more are in the pipeline, with the majority of them converging at the water-hosting lunar south pole and in low lunar polar orbit. With operating durations of various Mooncraft increasing with ambition, these convergences will compound. Amid competition for relatively limited access to lunar resources and varying levels of trust between countries and companies, the resulting vacuum of mission information can cause direct operational overlaps, geopolitical disputes, and even damages to spacecraft and future habitats. Experts we spoke to say it’s vital we at least find ways to exchange minimum viable information about Moon missions.
We invited three international experts to get their perspectives and share their insights on what are some key barriers to information sharing in Moon missions and sought ideas on where long-hanging fruits lie so we can start building trust through transparency.
Note: We’ve asked the international experts to contribute their perspectives freely in their personal capacities. These views do not formally belong to their organisations or any affiliations but instead draw from their overall experience.
We have faithfully replicated their written responses.
Q: According to you, what is one of the biggest barriers to lunar mission information & data sharing between entities globally?
Martin Reynders, an experienced space lawyer working internationally, responded as follows:
In my humble opinion, the biggest barriers we face today is the misconception that secrecy in general brings advantages. Sharing information benefits all. And this is what the exploration and use of outer space should be carried out for, the benefit of all countries, and it shall be the province of all humanity, words enshrined in Article I of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Bringing together data from different sources is necessary to get the most complete picture. This is not meant as declining intellectual property or priority rights, but as a call to cooperation. Not sharing information might allow you to exploit a certain resource before others do so but that profit is always rather short term. We have seen throughout the history of technology development that the first uses of various resources were usually the least efficient. Especially in the harsh conditions on the Moon, sharing information about perils and challenges to cutting-edge missions can be viewed as a necessity to reduce risks for all. Not sharing information might allow you to exploit a certain resource before others do so but the payoffs are often short term. In fact, exclusive access might not be necessary to attain mission objectives in many cases. For example, if you process lunar resources, there will be various products and byproducts, not all of which you will directly utilize/offer or be able to. If actors share information about planned missions instead, they can better identify possible areas of cooperation and synergies with others while sharing costs and risk.
Marieta Valdivia Lefort, Policy & Diversity Officer at Royal Astronomical Society, highlighted the barrier of technical interoperability:
The biggest barrier is not the absence of data, but the lack of standardisation in what is shared, how it is shared, and whether it is usable for a specific operational or scientific purpose. Most established information-sharing frameworks still focus mainly on collision avoidance and basic SSA [space situational awareness], especially in Earth orbit, but are far less developed for preventing interference with communications, navigation, and scientific instruments. Although the 1967 Outer Space Treaty states having due regard for activities of others, elements like information sharing only “to the greatest extent feasible and practicable” do not translate into a detailed operational template for routine data sharing. As a result, most sharing remains voluntary, depending on what operators choose to disclose. These issues are especially important for lunar missions, which depend on accurate ephemeris data, surface coordinates, timing synchronisation, and environmental measurements. These are essential for safe operations, Moon-based astronomy, and studies of polar water ice. And yet space agencies, companies, and universities still use different data formats, reference frames, metadata, and procedures.
Dr. Guoyu Wang, Deputy Director of CNSA’s Space Law Center and the Dean of the Academy of Air, Space Policy and Law in Beijing, noted the legal conundrum:
Much like in space traffic coordination, discussions on barriers to information sharing in lunar activities often focus primarily on what data or information could be or should be shared. However, the greatest uncertainty stems not from operational issues, but from legal ones. It is insufficient to merely specify the information to be shared without first clarifying the rights and obligations of all stakeholders.
Take landing site information sharing as an example. Given the scarcity of viable lunar landing sites at the lunar south pole, coordination between early and subsequent landers is essential. If space law clearly established that the first lander has a legal obligation to assist arriving landers, it would have strong incentives to share landing site data and spacecraft information to prevent collisions or hardware damage during later landings. Conversely, such incentives cannot be reliably provided on a voluntary basis; they must be established through binding legal mechanisms.
Q: What happens when baseline transparency between competing actors fails. How to avoid such outcomes? And is there a ‘low-hanging fruit’ which could kickstart good coordination between Moon missions and their entities?
Marieta Valdivia Lefort highlighted realistic cases:
A worst-case scenario would be that several missions operate in the same high value area, such as permanently shadowed regions at the lunar south pole, without sharing basic operational information. These areas are small, scientifically important, and sensitive to disturbance because they may contain accessible water ice. Landing plumes and dust could contaminate volatile deposits or nearby instruments, radio transmissions could disrupt sensitive measurements, and surface operations could disturb long-term scientific instruments or monitoring systems. More broadly, the Moon’s farside can especially enable unique cosmological studies through low-frequency radio astronomy because the side is naturally shielded from much of Earth’s radio interference. If an incident occurs, the lack of shared data would make it harder to identify the cause, assign responsibility, and respond quickly. Operators might then try to establish protective safety zones around their assets, reducing access to key scientific sites and increasing political tension. A useful guiding principle for avoiding this outcome is to adopt reciprocal minimum transparency: mutually sharing only the information needed for safety and coordination in advance. A standard Lunar Activity Notice system could improve coordination by requiring missions to share such details in advance in common formats. Existing proposals like the Lunar Ledger from Open Lunar Foundation suggest that this kind of baseline information exchange could support coordination and reduce risks.
Dr. Wang responded as follows:
A worst-case scenario would be the emergence of disputes without a clear, widely accepted legal regime governing lunar activities. If no common understanding of safety zones exists among major powers, one actor might unilaterally declare a safety zone around its polar mining facilities, only to be strongly opposed by others. Resolving such disputes after they arise would impose far higher costs than reaching prior agreement on such zoning measures, before disputes break out or even before hardware is launched to the Moon.
One highly practical yet underdeveloped “low-hanging fruit” is the development of basic legal norms and regimes, such as those governing safety zones or coordination zones. In my opinion, these have been unduly overlooked as non-operational issues even though they are a prerequisite for meaningful information sharing and legally less sensitive, and thus more feasible to advance early on, compared to many technical or resource-allocation topics.
Martin Reynders noted:
A lack of transparency leads to misconceptions which often are the root cause for conflicts, and which in a worst-case scenario cannot be settled peacefully. The core principles to avoid such outcomes were discussed and agreed upon by the international community already by 1967, relatively shortly after the first artificial earth satellite was launched. Article XI of the Outer Space Treaty calls upon State parties to share information in order to promote international cooperation. Given that the Treaty has been ratified by the majority of States, its principles should be respected when conducting lunar exploration. Sharing information is what the exploration and use of outer space should be carried out for, the benefit of all countries, and it shall be the province of all humanity, words enshrined in Article I of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
Jatan Mehta is a globally published & cited space writer and author of Moon Monday, the world’s only blog & newsletter dedicated to covering lunar exploration developments by countries worldwide.