NASA’s Artemis II ‘Earthset’ image reflects 57-year pattern of space exploration as extractive spectacle, obscuring lunar colonialism and Earth-system fragility

Indigenous knowledge systems universally frame celestial bodies as sacred and interconnected with Earth’s ecosystems, contrasting sharply with NASA’s extractive framing. The ‘Earthset’ image, like Apollo 8’s ‘Earthrise,’ reflects a Western gaze that objectifies Earth as a backdrop for human achievement, erasing Indigenous cosmologies where Earth and Moon are kin. Traditional ecological knowledge, such as that of the Hopi or Māori, emphasizes reciprocity with celestial bodies, a perspective entirely absent in Artemis narratives.

The ‘Earthrise’ and ‘Earthset’ images are part of a 500-year pattern of Western cartographic expansion, where ‘discovery’ narratives justified colonial resource extraction and Indigenous dispossession. Apollo-era imagery mirrored 19th-century landscape paintings that framed ‘virgin’ lands as ripe for exploitation, now replicated in space as ‘virgin’ celestial bodies. The Artemis program’s reliance on Apollo-era symbolism reveals a cyclical reinforcement of extractive modernity, where technological spectacle obscures structural violence.

Non-Western traditions often view the Earth-Moon system as a living, breathing entity, as seen in Hindu cosmology where the Moon (Chandra) is a deity sustaining life, or in Andean traditions where celestial cycles dictate agricultural practices. The Māori concept of ‘kaitiakitanga’ (guardianship) extends to the Moon, framing space exploration as a responsibility to preserve cosmic balance. These perspectives challenge the Artemis narrative’s focus on human dominance, offering instead a relational model of cosmic stewardship.

Scientifically, the ‘Earthset’ image provides no new data but serves as a propaganda tool to normalize lunar resource extraction and space militarization under the guise of ‘exploration.’ NASA’s use of high-resolution imagery aligns with decades of psychological studies showing how visual spectacle shapes public perception of technological progress. The lack of peer-reviewed analysis in the Phys.org piece reflects a broader trend where space agencies prioritize PR over scientific rigor, obscuring the ecological and ethical costs of their missions.

Artistically, the ‘Earthset’ image echoes Romantic-era landscape paintings that framed nature as a sublime backdrop for human achievement, a tradition now repurposed for spacefaring capitalism. Spiritual traditions across cultures—from Sufi poetry to Buddhist mandalas—depict Earth and Moon as sacred mirrors of the divine, a stark contrast to NASA’s secularized spectacle. The absence of artistic or spiritual framing in the original piece reflects a modernist reductionism that divorces science from meaning-making.

Future scenarios under Artemis Accords predict a lunar economy dominated by Western corporations, with off-world resource extraction exacerbating Earth’s ecological crises rather than alleviating them. The ‘Earthset’ imagery primes public acceptance for a future where space becomes a frontier for capital accumulation, mirroring historical patterns of colonial expansion. Without systemic regulation, this trajectory risks repeating Earth’s extractive errors on a cosmic scale, with lunar mining depleting water ice and destabilizing celestial ecosystems.

Marginalized voices—including Global South nations, Indigenous communities, and environmental justice activists—are systematically excluded from Artemis decision-making, despite bearing the brunt of space debris and rocket emissions. The Phys.org piece’s silence on these actors reflects a broader erasure of those who critique space capitalism, such as the African Space Agency’s calls for equitable resource governance. Even within NASA, voices from historically excluded groups (e.g., Black and Indigenous engineers) are sidelined in favor of narratives that serve aerospace elites.