NASA's Artemis II mission advances lunar ambitions amid systemic gaps in global space governance and equitable resource access

Indigenous lunar cosmologies universally treat celestial bodies as sacred or ancestral entities, not as resources to be exploited. NASA’s Artemis program, like historical colonial expeditions, frames the moon as a 'new frontier' ripe for extraction, ignoring the spiritual and ecological harm this inflicts. The lack of consultation with Indigenous peoples in mission planning reflects a continuation of the Doctrine of Discovery, which historically justified the seizure of Indigenous lands and now extends to space. Indigenous knowledge systems offer alternative frameworks for lunar exploration that prioritise reciprocity and balance.

The Artemis program mirrors 15th–19th century colonial expeditions, where 'discovery' justified resource appropriation and territorial expansion. The Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Artemis Accords replicate the flaws of historical treaties by allowing signatory nations to extract lunar resources without universal consent. The Apollo missions set a precedent for unchecked Western dominance in space, and Artemis deepens this pattern by prioritising national prestige over global cooperation. This historical continuity reveals how space exploration is often a tool of geopolitical power rather than scientific progress.

Non-Western space programs, such as China’s Chang’e missions and India’s Chandrayaan, frame lunar exploration as a collective scientific endeavour rather than a competitive race. African and Latin American nations have proposed equitable lunar governance models that reject the Artemis Accords’ resource-extraction logic. Indigenous communities in the Andes and Australia have long advocated for celestial bodies to be recognised as shared heritage, not commodities. These perspectives highlight the need for decolonial approaches to space exploration that centre collaboration over conquest.

Artemis II’s technological achievements, such as the Orion spacecraft’s deep-space navigation, are undeniable scientific milestones. However, the mission’s scientific goals are constrained by political and economic priorities, such as the Lunar Gateway’s role in facilitating commercial mining. The lack of peer-reviewed data on the environmental impacts of lunar resource extraction represents a critical gap in scientific oversight. Additionally, the mission’s focus on short-term goals overlooks the long-term risks of space debris and contamination of pristine lunar environments.

Artistic and spiritual traditions across cultures have long depicted the moon as a symbol of cyclical time, feminine energy, and cosmic harmony. The Artemis narrative, with its militarised language and extractive imagery, disrupts these sacred associations by framing the moon as a 'resource' to be conquered. Indigenous artists and poets, such as those from the Māori and Navajo communities, have critiqued this framing as a violation of celestial sanctity. Reimagining space exploration through art could foster a more reverent and holistic approach to lunar exploration.

Artemis II sets a precedent for a future where lunar resource extraction could exacerbate Earth’s resource wars by creating new arenas for geopolitical competition. The mission’s focus on establishing a permanent lunar presence risks normalising off-world colonialism, where marginalised communities on Earth are excluded from decision-making. Scenario modelling suggests that without binding international agreements, Artemis could trigger a 'space resource rush' similar to the 19th-century gold rushes. Future missions must prioritise sustainability and equitable governance to avoid repeating terrestrial injustices.

The Artemis narrative is dominated by Western scientists, corporations, and policymakers, excluding voices from the Global South, Indigenous communities, and women in STEM. Women of colour, who are underrepresented in aerospace engineering, are particularly marginalised in a field that historically prioritises male-led exploration. The mission’s economic benefits are unlikely to reach marginalised communities, who bear the brunt of environmental degradation on Earth. Centring these voices could shift the focus from extraction to cooperation and sustainability.