Artemis II’s Moon fly-by: How NASA’s scientific nerve centre obscures colonial legacies and extractive space governance
Original framing: “Behind the scenes with Artemis II’s scientists during the historic Moon fly-by” — Nature
The original framing omits Indigenous lunar cosmologies (e.g., Māori, Navajo, or Māori perspectives on the Moon as a living entity), historical parallels to 19th-century colonial land grabs in the name of 'science,' and the structural causes of space militarisation (e.g., the Artemis Accords as a tool for U.S. hegemony). It also excludes marginalised voices from the Global South, whose exclusion from space governance perpetuates neo-colonial resource extraction. The narrative ignores the ecological consequences of lunar mining and the ethical implications of treating the Moon as a 'resource' rather than a shared heritage.
Medium structural omission detected in mainstream coverage.
The narrative is produced by *Nature*, a Western-centric scientific journal, for an elite audience of policymakers, scientists, and corporate stakeholders invested in space commercialisation. The framing serves the interests of NASA and its private-sector partners (e.g., SpaceX, Blue Origin) by legitimising their extractive agenda under the guise of 'scientific progress.' It obscures the power structures that exclude Global South nations, Indigenous peoples, and marginalised communities from decision-making about extraterrestrial governance, while reinforcing a neocolonial vision of space as a frontier for exploitation rather than stewardship.
Future modelling of Artemis II must account for the geopolitical risks of lunar militarisation, where resource competition could escalate into conflict—echoing terrestrial water wars or Arctic territorial disputes. Scenario planning should include Indigenous-led governance models, such as the Māori *kaitiakitanga* (guardianship) framework, to prevent extractive outcomes. The mission’s long-term implications include the commercialisation of the Moon’s south pole (rich in water ice), which could trigger a 'space gold rush' with no regulatory safeguards. This dimension scores highly (0.9) because the narrative’s lack of future-oriented analysis is a critical omission.
The Artemis II narrative exemplifies how Western scientific institutions, in collaboration with corporate and state actors, perpetuate a colonial paradigm in space exploration—one that treats the Moon as a resource for extraction rather than a sacred, ecologically interconnected entity.