[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE MINERAL SUPPLY CHAIN AND THE NEW SPACE RACE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, December 12, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
00-000 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
PAUL GOSAR, AZ, Chairman
MIKE COLLINS, GA, Vice Chair
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, NM, Ranking Member
Matt Rosendale, MT Ed Case, HI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Ruben Gallego, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Susie Lee, NV
Anna Paulina Luna, FL Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, December 12, 2023....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gosar, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arizona................................................. 1
Stansbury, Hon. Melanie A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Sundby, Eric, Co-Founder and CEO of TerraSpace, Executive
Director of the Space Force Association, Boerne, Texas..... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Questions submitted for the record....................... 7
Autry, Greg, Director and Clinical Professor, Space
Leadership, Policy, and Business, Thunderbird School of
Global Management, Arizona State University, Phoenix,
Arizona.................................................... 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 19
Milazzo, Moses P., Owner of Other Orb, Chief Scientist for
NASA's Planetary Data Ecosystem, Flagstaff, Arizona........ 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Questions submitted for the record....................... 27
Hanlon, Michelle, Executive Director, Center for Air and
Space Law, the University of Mississippi School of Law,
University, Mississippi.................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Questions submitted for the record....................... 40
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar
AstroForge, Inc., Statement for the Record............... 62
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE MINERAL SUPPLY CHAIN AND THE NEW SPACE RACE
----------
Tuesday, December 12, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gosar, Rosendale, Collins,
Westerman; and Stansbury.
Also present: Representatives Crane, Lamborn; and Kamlager-
Dove.
Dr. Gosar. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
mineral supply chain and the new space race.
I ask unanimous consent the following Members be allowed to
testify today with the Subcommittee, to give their testimony,
and participate in the hearing from the dais: the gentleman
from Arizona, Mr. Crane; and the gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
Lamborn.
Without objection, so ordered.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member. I therefore ask unanimous consent that all
other Members' statements be made part of the hearing record if
they are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
Without objection, so ordered.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Dr. Gosar. Good morning everyone, and thank you to all the
witnesses who have traveled such a long way to get here to
testify on this important and somewhat new issue for the
Subcommittee: the mineral supply chain and the new space race.
The witnesses before us today are among the most pre-eminent
intellects and entrepreneurs in their field, so I look forward
to our discussion.
I understand that mining in space is not an issue that we
hear about every day in Congress, but the fact is that the rest
of the world, including some of our greatest competitors, like
China and Russia, have started a new space race. This time it
isn't a race to land someone on the moon for bragging rights.
It is a race to establish a permanent, sustained space presence
that will allow these countries to tap into the vast resources
in space, and subsequently control life on Earth in
immeasurable ways.
Sadly, the governments of China and Russia have already
completed a lap around the track, and the U.S. Government is
seemingly unaware that the race has even started. Today's
hearing aims to change that.
The effort to mine in space is driven by the immediate and
projected global demands for minerals. Minerals including
copper, lithium, cobalt, and dozens of others are integral to
our modern way of life and technological innovation. There are
increased obstacles to mining on Earth, so turning outwards
reflects the unfortunate reality that space mining is more and
more a necessity.
Mineral demand, driven by technological change, is
exacerbated by climate goals and heavy-handed mandates from
governments, including mandates from the Biden administration
that force mineral-dependent electric vehicles on American
consumers. As a result, global demands for critical minerals is
projected to be more than doubled by 2030, and that is a
conservative estimate.
Sadly, President Biden and his cronies have been making
America increasingly reliant on our foreign adversaries for
mineral supplies. The Biden administration is increasing
mineral demand, with unprecedented government intervention into
private markets, while at the same time doing everything in its
power to strangle our domestic mining industry, including
shutting down mining projects in my state of Arizona.
The actions by President Biden are further exacerbating
America's dangerous reliance on China for critical minerals. At
this time, the United States is import-reliant on China for 26
of the 50 minerals designated as critical by the USGS and the
Department of the Interior.
China also dominates the mineral refining process,
accounting for 85 to 90 percent of the global rare Earth
element mine-to-metal refining. China's dominance of mineral
supply chains on Earth presents a grave threat to America's
national security and economic interests.
Additionally, the minerals integral to modern life
typically come from resource-rich countries that are among the
most egregious violators of human rights and the environment.
For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo is associated
with horrific environmental degradation and slave labor, yet it
produces two-thirds of the world's cobalt. It is not a reach to
say that a child in Congo is currently risking his or her life
so that Americans can have unlimited access to smartphones and
electrical vehicles.
As elected officials and Americans, members of the
Committee cannot and should not turn a blind eye to where and
how we get the minerals that have become essential to our
modern way of life. The United States has a choice of how it
responds to this exponential demand for minerals. We can
increase support for domestic production where we are certain
of responsible development practices, or allow foreign nations
with unacceptable labor and environmental standards to dominate
the global market. In order to maximize the national security,
economic and environmental interests of the United States,
prioritizing domestic mineral production is key.
While it is overdue for the United States to unleash
domestic mineral development, America must also prepare to lead
the world into the next frontier: space mining. As a country,
we must accept that we are in the midst of a new space race,
and we must take steps to secure the celestial mineral supply
chain to provide a stable future for the United States and the
free world.
Undoubtedly, we must also overcome major hurdles to make
space mining a reality. This includes a transportation cost,
logistical and technological hurdles, and the inherent
uncertainty of space activity. However, if the United States
can develop the ability to tap into these vast mineral
resources on celestial bodies such as moons, Mars, and
asteroids, the potential may in fact be limitless.
Eventually, the volume and the value of the space mining
will provide immeasurable benefits to whoever controls the
celestial mineral supply chain, and will prove disastrous for
those who ignore it. China and Russia are committed to mining
in space, and if we don't start preparing for the future of our
resource development now, we will continue to find ourselves in
a vulnerable position. Thus, America must take the necessary
steps to secure our mineral supply chains by increasing
domestic mineral development and leading the development of
space mining activities.
I now recognize Ranking Member Stansbury for her 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MELANIE A. STANSBURY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Good morning, everyone, and thank
you, Chairman Gosar and to my colleagues for this interesting
hearing this morning. I am looking forward to hearing from our
expert witnesses.
And I have to say, Mr. Chairman, when it came across my
desk that we were going to have a hearing on space mining in
the Natural Resources Oversight Committee, I did not have this
on my bingo card this session. So, I am looking forward to the
discussion today.
I agree with the Chairman that we absolutely have to
address our critical minerals issues. We have had countless
hearings in this Committee and other hearings across committees
across Congress. We all know that this is a crucial national
security issue, but I think that we have to also be realistic
about the science, and I think we are going to hear a bit about
that today.
Space mining, if it does transpire, is not in the immediate
future. So, some of the issues that have been raised about our
national security interests and supply chains cannot be
resolved by pursuing this particular avenue. In fact, we know
that many of the things that have to be pursued in the short
term are right in front of us, and that is why the Biden
administration has passed and put into place a whole-of-supply-
chain effort to address our critical minerals with a strategy
that they have put together, and that includes stockpiling the
critical minerals that we do have access to. It means
collaborations with our allies around the world where critical
minerals are located. It means that, as international stewards,
we ensure that the practices for sourcing those minerals follow
human rights protocols and environmental protection and, of
course, that we help to promote a circular economy here on
Earth, because we are, in fact, going to need these critical
minerals in order to make this clean energy transformation that
we are all undergoing right now.
So, it is important that we address these issues. And I do
look forward to hearing from our folks today who are going to
share about the near term and longer term aspirations of mining
and space, what the technology looks like, what the ethical,
moral, and legal considerations of all of that is. But we have
to actually act here on Earth in the meantime.
There are also a number of issues that we have to be
conscious of as we are pursuing these strategies. This is an
interesting hearing to have in this Committee, which has
primary jurisdiction over our public lands and waters, and
works with our Indigenous Nations. And certainly, we want to
make sure that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past as we
pursue new technological options to pursue the sourcing of
critical minerals.
But I do have to say it is the last week of Congress. We
are about to gavel out in 2 weeks. We still haven't passed a
real budget yet for the Federal Government. We still haven't
actually addressed many of the big issues that are immediately
in front of us. We have unsustainable leadership. There are
fights in the halls happening. We had a Member expelled from
Congress just 2 weeks ago. It is really a chaotic time. So, it
is a bit strange, I think, for this Committee, which is an
oversight committee, to be holding a hearing on space mining
based on an aspiration that is possibly decades down the line,
while our country is facing real crises.
So, while I am looking forward to hearing about this
important issue, and I greatly appreciate the expertise of our
witnesses who traveled here to come share today, it is a bit of
an odd distraction from the most pressing issues that our
country is facing right now. But I do look forward to the
conversation.
Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlelady. I am always a believer
you can chew gum and walk at the same time. I think we are
going to find some interesting avenues in regards to our panel.
Armageddon might be closer than you think.
I also want to waive on Ms. Kamlager-Dove for the panel,
please.
Now I am going to introduce our witnesses. First, we have
Mr. Eric Sundby, Co-Founder and CEO of TerraSpace, Executive
Director of Space Force Association, Boerne, Texas; Dr. Greg
Autry, Director and Clinical Professor, Space Leadership,
Policy, and Business, Thunderbird School of Global Management,
Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona; Dr. Moses Milazzo,
Owner of Other Orb, Chief Scientist for NASA's Planetary Data
Ecosystem, Flagstaff, Arizona; and Ms. Michelle Hanlon,
Executive Director, Center for Air and Space Law, University of
Mississippi School of Law, University, Mississippi.
Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, you
must limit your oral statements to 5 minutes, but the entire
statement will appear in the hearing record.
To begin your testimony, press the ``on'' button on the
microphone.
We use timing lights here. To begin, you will see the green
light. When it gets to the last minute, it turns yellow. And
then finally, when it is red, you want to summarize up and
finish up.
I now recognize Mr. Sundby for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ERIC SUNDBY, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO OF TERRASPACE,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SPACE FORCE ASSOCIATION, BOERNE,
TEXAS
Mr. Sundby. Good morning, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member
Stansbury, honorable members of the Subcommittee. I want to
thank you for having us here today to speak on this issue of
critical importance to our nation's security and standing on
the global stage.
My name is Eric Sundby. I am the Co-Founder and CEO of
TerraSpace, a mineral exploration company applying artificial
intelligence to the mineral analysis process. I also serve as
the Executive Director of the Space Force Association, a non-
profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to supporting space
force guardians and their families, and advocating for strong
national and allied space power.
Humanity stands on the precipice of a new era, one that
will be defined by space development and the utilization of
space resources. Space holds an endless amount of opportunity
for America, both economic and strategic. Yet, this opportunity
is challenged by the Chinese Communist Party and its allies in
Russia and a growing number of states, as China has launched
the International Lunar Research Station Organization
Initiative over the last year.
In 2015, the Strategic Support Force was established,
providing a more organized structure for the space forces of
the People's Liberation Army. It is through this institution
that the China-manned space program is housed, which oversees
all astronauts, operations, and space infrastructure
development.
Lastly, in 2019, the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program
Director equated the moon and other celestial bodies in the
solar system to a series of island chains currently controlled
by the Philippines and Japan, of which has been a point of
contention in the CCP's illegal territorial expansion in the
South China Sea.
Given actions here on Earth, the potential for great power
competition in the space domain, particularly over space
resources, is not on the horizon; it has already arrived.
In 2022, the United States Geological Survey, as you know,
classified 50 mineral commodities that have no viable
substitutes and are essential to the economic security of the
United States. Many of these natural resources have been
discovered on celestial bodies in our solar system, including
on the moon and in the asteroid belt. Our ability to access and
utilize these critical minerals here on Earth is threatened, as
China currently controls 60 percent of production and 85
percent of processing capacity, according to analysis by the
USGS and Natural Resources Canada.
This threat to our mineral supply chain calls for new and
innovative ways at looking at resources from a national
perspective, with space resources being front and center. This
upcoming month, in January 2024, a company from my home state
of Texas, Intuitive Machines, will return America to the lunar
surface for the first time since 1972. What is notable about
this feat is that it is done by a commercial company. Its
commercialization of access to space is what gives our country
the strategic advantage. It is private enterprise that will
provide new opportunities in the field of mineral discovery,
mining, and processing, and will open up access to space
resources.
I want to urge this Committee to investigate ways in which
the government can encourage and lower entry barriers for
technologies that can be applied to support the established
Earth mining industry, while also enabling the discovery and
access to resources off planet.
Various government agencies offer commercial companies the
opportunity to contribute to research and develop technologies
through programs such as Small Business Innovation Research
grants, or SBIRs.
One area of improvement could be the USGS offering specific
grants in support to companies developing technology to enable
faster and less environmentally impactful methods of discovery
and access of critical minerals, with an emphasis on such dual-
use technologies as I mentioned earlier.
The use of space resources in alleviating the mineral
supply chain here on Earth will not be an easy or quick task. I
want to be clear about that. This must be a long-term strategic
goal of the United States. Nevertheless, the development of
technologies capable of operating in the harsh environment of
space will enable further discovery and access to critical
minerals here on Earth, such as those in existing mine sites,
in more remote locations on land, and the deep seabed. Numerous
start-ups and commercial companies are leading in this field,
and are offering services in critical minerals, while
exemplifying the pioneering spirit of American innovation.
President John F. Kennedy vowed that we shall not see space
governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of
freedom and peace. It is up to the government to prioritize our
nation's mineral supply chain, and open the way for such
companies to carry this spirit forward into this new era. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sundby follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lang Eric Sundby, Co-Founder & CEO of TerraSpace,
Executive Director of the Space Force Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for
having us here to speak today on this issue of critical importance to
our nation's security and standing on the global stage. My name is Eric
Sundby, I am Co-Founder & CEO of TerraSpace, a mineral exploration
company applying artificial intelligence to the mineral analysis
process. I also serve as the Executive Director of the Space Force
Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting Space
Force guardians and their families, and advocating for strong national
and allied spacepower.
Humanity stands on the precipice of a new era, one that will be
defined by space development and the utilization of space resources.
Space holds an endless amount of opportunity for America, both economic
and strategic. Yet, this opportunity is challenged by the Chinese
Communist Party, and its allies in Russia and a growing number of
states, as China has launched the International Lunar Research Station
Organization initiative over the last year. In 2015, the Strategic
Support Force was established, providing a more organized structure for
the space forces of the People's Liberation Army. It is through this
institution that the China Manned Space Program is housed, which
oversees all astronauts, operations, and space infrastructure
development. Lastly, in 2019, the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program
director equated the Moon and other celestial bodies in the solar
system to a series of island chains currently controlled by the
Philippines and Japan, of which has been a point of contention in the
CCP's illegal territorial expansion in the South China Sea.
Given actions here on earth, the potential for great power
competition in the space domain, particularly over space resources, is
not on the horizon, it has already arrived. In 2022, the United States
Geological Survey classified 50 mineral commodities that have no viable
substitutes and are essential to the economic security of the United
States. Many of these natural resources have been discovered on
celestial bodies in our solar system including on the Moon and in the
asteroid belt. Our ability to access and utilize these critical
minerals is threatened, as China currently controls roughly 60% of
production and 85% of processing capacity according to analysis by the
USGS and Natural Resources Canada. This threat to our mineral supply
chain calls for new and innovative ways at looking at resources from a
national perspective, with space resources being front and center.
This upcoming month, in January 2024, a company from my home state
of Texas, Intuitive Machines, will return America to the lunar surface
for the first time since 1972. What is notable about this feat, is that
it is done by a commercial company. This commercialization of access to
space is what gives our country the strategic advantage. It is private
enterprise that will provide new opportunities in the field of mineral
discovery, mining, and processing, and will open up access to space
resources. I want to urge this Committee to investigate ways in which
the government can encourage and lower entry barriers for technologies
that can be applied to support the established Earth mining industry,
while also enabling the discovery and access to resources off planet.
Various government agencies offer commercial companies the opportunity
to contribute to research and develop technologies through programs
such as Small Business Innovation Research grants or SBIRs. One area of
improvement could be the USGS offering specific grants and support to
companies developing technology that enable faster and less
environmentally impactful methods of discovery and access of critical
minerals, with an emphasis on such dual-use technologies as I mentioned
earlier.
The use of space resources in alleviating the mineral supply chain
here on Earth will not be an easy or quick task, I want to be clear,
this must be a long-term strategic goal of the United States.
Nevertheless, the development of technologies capable of operating in
the harsh environment of space, will enable further discovery and
access to critical minerals here on Earth, such as those on the deep-
sea bed, existing mining sites, and in more remote locations on land.
Numerous start-ups and commercial companies, including TerraSpace, are
leading in this field and are offering services in critical minerals
while exemplifying the pioneering spirit of American innovation. It is
up to the government to prioritize our nation's mineral supply chain
and open the way for such companies to carry this spirit forward into
this new era.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Eric Sundby, Co-Founder & CEO
of TerraSpace, Executive Director of the Space Force Association
Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
Question 1. How are space resources natural resources?
Answer. From the widely accepted definition of the term natural
resources, minerals from space are clearly classified as a natural
resource.
Explanation:
The Encyclopedia Britannica defines a natural resource as ``any
biological, mineral, or aesthetic asset afforded by nature without
human intervention that can be used for some form of benefit, whether
material (economic) or immaterial'' (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2023).
From this widely accepted definition, minerals are clearly classified
as a natural resource. The vast majority of minerals that are central
to our way of life (save for some lab produced substances), come from
geological processes that are outside of human intervention. These
minerals naturally include the list of 50 critical minerals classified
by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) last year as having no
viable substitutes and play a central role in our national and economic
security (Burton, 2022).
In terms of resources in outer space, found on planetary bodies
such as the Moon and Mars, and asteroids abundant in the asteroid belt,
all of these resources have been developed through processes afforded
by nature without human intervention. Thus, space resources are
definitively natural resources. Nevertheless, to understand space
resources better requires a deeper dive into what resources are
actually out there. The answer is rather simple, most of the natural
resources found on Earth can be found in space. Asteroids, for example,
are generally analyzed through viewing visual spectra through a
telescope, or more simply stated by looking at the properties of the
light reflecting off an asteroid's surface. This visual spectrum
indicates what resources make up the majority of the asteroid. Through
decades of research into asteroid samples which have fallen to Earth,
we have come to the understanding that asteroids are generally
geologically homogenous, meaning they are largely made up of the same
material. Many of the critical minerals on the USGS's list can be found
in the asteroid belt, including platinum, palladium, nickel, cobalt,
rhodium, ruthenium, the list goes on and on. So too are other useful
elements found in abundance, such as iron.
Planetary bodies, on the other hand, are trickier. Much like with
the Earth, these bodies can be heavily geologically diverse. Some
contain thick layers of regolith (a layer of loose material such as
dust and rocks, lacking organic material, which covers a more solid
planetary surface). The Moon is a perfect example of a planetary body
with natural resources near Earth. Although much is known about the
Moon's geological and mineralogical makeup, there remains a lot we have
yet to learn. Lunar regolith has been determined to range from 4-5
meters in the mare (plains) regions to 10-15 meters in the highland
regions (Heiken, et. al., 2005). The Apollo missions, particularly
Apollo 15, 16, and 17, used drill cores to collect deeper samples
rather than scooping surface regolith and collecting surface rocks;
however, the deepest core collected was a mere 2.92 meters, not going
deeper than the regolith (Meyer, 2007). While we do have a good
understanding of what mineral deposits and their characteristics are
below the regolith, based on LIDAR (light detection and ranging),
ground-penetrating radar, and other remote sensing technologies, we
have yet to get physical samples which would give an exorbitant amount
more of data. On Earth, the mineral exploration process is more
complex, with core drilling and logging of mineralogical information
and data from these cores central to the process. Mineral exploration
at mine sites requires the acquisition of many core samples at varying
depths, most in the tens to hundreds of meters. These samples are then
analyzed by geologists to determine the presence of minerals being
sought (Epiroc, 2023). While this process is common in the mining
industry, the development of technologies to discover specific mineral
makeups of regions on planetary bodies has been limited to exploration
programs through NASA and other government funded programs in various
countries, and have not been scaled to enable substantial mineral
exploration off planet.
From these facts it is clear that space resources are natural
resources. Yet, the ability to explore deeper for specific mineral
deposits on planetary bodies has lacked substantial developments--which
should be encouraged by the government, and can benefit the country
economically, strategically, and environmentally.
Question 2. How can the House Committee on Natural Resources help
America secure the celestial mineral supply chain?
Answer. Short Answer----
The House Committee on Natural Resources has jurisdiction over the
topic of space resources, as it oversees the USGS which conducts
research and publication on this field. The committee can take five key
actions to move the ball forward on technological innovation and
development of space resources which will help America secure the
celestial mineral supply chain.
Action Plan----
I would like to propose five actions on how it can help America
secure the celestial mineral supply chain:
1. Place space resources as a ``Mission Area'' of the USGS.
a. While space resources will play directly into the
``Energy and Minerals Mission Area'' once the field is matured,
space resources currently require a separate focus to help
develop the field.
2. Increase funding to the Astrogeology Science Center at USGS.
a. The Astrogeology Science Center is the primary
organization within USGS that oversees planetary science,
mapping, and geologic research; however, it is arguably lacking
in funding that would enable it to cooperate and coordinate
with innovative start-ups and private commercial companies
developing new technologies in the field. Further, the Center
could increase its research into mapping and surveying, and
mineral exploration for the public's knowledge, while also
increasing its scientific research output.
3. Develop an open-topic SBIR or similar grant program. This program
can include a track focused on space resources, which
encourages commercial companies in the development of dual-
use technologies that will enable eventual access and
utilization of space resources.
a. Unlike many other government organizations (including
the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, NASA, and
others), the USGS lacks a substantial private sector grant
program to encourage innovation in technologies that will
benefit the further access to critical minerals designated by
the USGS.
4. Require a yearly report to the Committee from USGS on the state
of space resources technologies, scientific developments in
the field, and discovery and mapping of new resources.
a. By providing the Committee with frequent updates on
developments in the field of space resources, members of the
House will be increasingly informed about the realities of the
field, and how and when such resources may alleviate Earth-
based reliance of certain key minerals. Further, the Committee
will be informed through this report on the actions of foreign
states, including adversaries, in the field of space resources.
5. Form a Congressional Advisory Commission to examine and make
recommendations with respect to the near-term and long-term
development and uses of space resources, and its impact on
the national security and economic security of the United
States.
a. As this issue has largely been left out of discussion
within Congress, this Commission could present Congress with a
detailed report with a defined realistic timeline and specific
policies the government should take in approaching the issue of
space resources. The Commission may provide a comparative
analysis on the use of space resources to offset environmental
damage on Earth, as well as the developments of foreign states,
including adversaries, on this topic. This Commission can also
provide annual reports to Congress on technical, financial, and
strategic progress made in the field.
Explanation:
Despite some confusion, the Committee indeed has jurisdiction over
the topic of space resources, first and foremost due to its oversight
of the United States Geological Survey which has been given purview
over the field of study. Since 1960, the USGS has managed the
Astrogeology Science Center, previously classified as the Astrogeologic
Studies Group and the Astrogeology Research Program, which was
originally formed to assist in Lunar and planetary mapping, Apollo
astronaut geological training, and other space focused research
(Wilhelms, 1993). According to the USGS, this internal organization is
explicitly tasked with the following mission statement: ``To help
humanity understand our solar system by maximizing the scientific and
technological return from planetary missions through scientific
research, software development, and the creation of spatial data
products and standards'' (U.S. Geological Survey, 2023). The
Astrogeology Science Center further serves as ``a national resource for
the integration of planetary geoscience, cartography, and remote
sensing'' (U.S. Geological Survey, 2023).
Now that it is established that the House Committee on Natural
Resources has jurisdiction over this topic. Regarding space resources,
the House Committee on Natural Resources has a massive responsibility
before it, one that has the potential to change the course of our
entire species. While such a statement may be seen as hyperbolic to
some, it is clear that the abundance of resources available in near-
Earth space can be utilized for the betterment of humanity, and the
security of our country on the global stage. Through the five actions
listed above, the House Committee on Natural Resources can raise the
discussion of the important impact that space resources will have on
the country outside of the laboratory and into the public forum. If we
are to advance as a nation, we need to look forward, realistically,
towards the positive economic uses of outer space from a more public
level.
Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn
Question 1. What are the opportunities and barriers to greater
coordination and investment in space resources research within
industry?
Answer. Regarding coordination and investment in space resources
research within industry, there are a few barriers and opportunities
that present themselves. Barriers include the failure of previous space
resources focused firms and subsequent investor hesitancy in the field,
the SBIR program not focusing enough on mining/space resources adjacent
technologies, and a general lack of understanding on the topic in wider
society. Opportunities that exist include the Artemis Program's
strength of bringing space resources into a mainstream discussion and
its requirements for technology in the field, the development of dual
use technology that helps the existing mining industry while also
benefiting the development of space resources, and lastly the
application and adaptation of existing technology within industry to
support space resources which can open up establish companies into the
new market.
Explanation:
Innovation through the private sector is one of America's greatest
strengths, but it also faces a large hurdle before it. Specifically,
for space resources, there exists a few barriers that prevent greater
coordination between firms and investment into companies in the field.
One of the primary barriers to investment in space resources is the
previous failure of companies such as Planetary Resources, which was
subsequently acquired by the software company ConsenSys. Because the
space resources market has not materialized within a healthy time
frame, investors are hesitant to throw money at new companies in the
field, and rightfully so. Since 1982, the government has coordinated
the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant program, which has
provided many startups with funding and government partnerships that
attract investment. These SBIR programs have become part of the very
fabric of American innovation, and in many cases are a requirement by
investors for a startup to have before they commit their angel or
venture capital money to the young firm.
The challenge here is that industry has become accustomed to
reliance on small government grants, which are meant to prove out basic
innovative technology. With a lack of space resources or peripheral
related technology being strongly represented in SBIR programs, many
space resources companies find themselves competing and working on
grants that do not assist in developing their firm's technology, and
thus slow their ability or outright stop them from creating a
commercially viable dual-use or space-focused technology for access or
utilization of space resources.
A final barrier to coordination is the lack of understanding by the
public, the mining industry, and the wider aerospace sector of the
abundance of what space offers in terms of critical minerals and
natural resources. This issue is somewhat more challenging than the
others, as it requires educating various markets and their leadership,
and requiring clarity of understanding the near-term and long-term
issues related to space resources and returns on investment.
With discussion of barriers to greater coordination and investment
in space resources within industry being somewhat heavy, it is
important to point out the numerous positive opportunities that
industry presents. First and foremost, the existing Artemis Program led
by NASA requires a multitude of newer technologies to sustain human
operations on the lunar surface. For the Artemis Program and subsequent
presence on the Moon to be successful and sustainable, the access and
utilization of space resources will be centrally necessary in achieving
this goal, both for construction of shelter, forming landing pads for
spacecraft (in order not to kick up massive amounts of regolith), and
the development of rocket fuels and potential nuclear reactor fuels.
These necessities drive up the government's reliance on private
companies' space resources technologies, which in turn can drive
investor's interest in investing in such companies.
Another opportunity for greater coordination and investment into
space resources presented by industry is the development of dual use
technologies. While the phrase dual use can be seen as a buzzword,
there exists very real opportunities with such technology. For example,
the process of mineral exploration is human-intensive and requires many
core samples to be taken at mine sites. Some dual use technologies
being developed currently allow for a more autonomous process of
analyzing minerals, as well as new technology that allows drill bits to
core deeper both on Earth and off-planet.
An opportunity also exists in seeking out existing and developed
technology that has not been introduced into the field of space
resources, or thought to be utilized in such a manner. Many inventions
and technologies that are in use on Earth will be needed when accessing
and utilizing resources in space. Through treating space resources as a
priority, existing industry can be brought into the fold to assist in
the development of the nascent space resources market.
Question 2. What other gaps are we missing when we think of mining
operations in space, and the need for a supply chain to bring those
back or refine them in space?
Answer. There exists a handful of gaps in mining operations in
space, and particularly in the supply chain. These gaps include the
creation of more powerful energy sources, autonomous capabilities to
explore and prospect for minerals, and the further refining of
extraction techniques that are not commonly used on earth. However, it
is important to note that much of these gaps are being investigated by
startups and innovative companies with promising answers.
Explanation:
Mining in general seems to be an afterthought of most in society.
There is a common perception that if we are to use electric vehicles
and batteries in our grid system that we will lower environmental
impact. While electric vehicles and electrification in general is
largely a positive move for lowering carbon emissions, it is extremely
questionable that the current environmental and human impact of mining
is truly offsetting our impact on the planet (International Energy
Agency, 2021). While the International Energy Agency's report on the
role of critical minerals in clean energy transitions does note steps
to mitigate the environmental impacts made by mining, as long as
humanity exists, we will require resources to survive. Unfortunately
accessing many of these minerals has negative impacts on our natural
environment. Therefore, we require a levelheaded and realistic approach
to the process required to access critical mineral resources beyond our
home planet, for the benefit of our home planet. While this vision is
one that will not be achieved in a short time, it is one that needs to
be planned for strategically and worked towards diligently.
When thinking about mining in space, and particularly the supply
chain necessary to bring back such minerals or refine and use them in
space, many frequently throw their hands up in dismay at the complex
physics and orbital mechanics involved. Others hold starry eyed visions
of an expanding human species beyond this planet that will explore and
develop the cosmos. Both groups have much merit, and admittedly, I find
myself in the latter camp (albeit grounded by reality).
Although the physics involved is complex, the reality is that
accessing and utilizing space resources is entirely possible, and in my
view necessary. Where the `grounding in reality' I mentioned earlier
comes from, is the complex supply-chain processes that will need to be
developed to enable space resources to be brought to the Earth market,
or at least used in developing in-space economies.
1. First, a super-heavy lift launch vehicle will need to be
certified and produced at scale. This challenge is
something SpaceX has taken on with their Starship and Super
Heavy systems (SpaceX, 2023). Others, including Blue Origin
are developing their own launch platforms to rival Starship
as well. There exist concerns over Starship's need of
refueling, but nevertheless, as engineering processes go,
the system will see new iterations with potential
propulsion designs that decrease the need for frequent
refueling. Only time will tell. Starship, and other super
heavy lift launch platforms have been noted as being
useable for the transportation of samples and minerals
extracted in space (O'Callaghan 2021).
2. Second, the creation of more powerful energy sources and storage
capability will assist in increasing the operational
capacity of rovers, drills, etc.
3. Third, a stronger on-site (and most likely autonomous) capability
to explore and prospect for minerals is needed. This
capability can be coupled with existing remote sensing
technologies.
4. Fourth, extraction techniques need to be refined, as some of
those proposed are not used on Earth as they uniquely
navigate the extreme environment space presents.
These gaps in the supply chain are understood by many in the field
of space resources. Some of these gaps have entire books written about
them, but often are not consulted by policy and lawmakers because of an
all to frequent (and very wrong) belief that the development of space
does not benefit the Earth.
Nevertheless, there exists an important gap in the formation of the
supply chain for near future mining operations of planetary bodies: one
that has of yet been answered by theoretical concepts or early-stage
technologies. This gap is that of mineral exploration and prospecting,
as mentioned briefly before. Planetary bodies have not been explored
similarly to how we search for minerals on Earth. Probes have used
remote sensing, and for the Moon, the Apollo astronauts took samples
from the surface. If we want to explore for minerals in space as we do
on the Earth, we must develop technologies and capabilities that allow
us to understand the economic viability of extracting resources from a
planetary body such as the Moon. To achieve this capability requires
deeper core samples, and more sophisticated mineral analysis equipment
and sensors, including the need for autonomous systems, to be able to
determine if a site on such a planetary body is worth mining--just as
we do here on Earth. Remote sensing and surface sampling just won't cut
it. This is a key gap that will need to be fixed as the Artemis
Program, and the equivalent International Lunar Research Station
Organization being developed by China and Russia, begin to populate the
lunar surface and search for critical minerals. The development of
capabilities such as autonomous mineral exploration rigs will help in
the discovery of new mine sites off world, bridging a key gap in the
space resources supply chain.
References
Astrogeology Science Center--About/U.S. Geological Survey. (2023).
www.usgs.gov. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/astrogeology-science-center/
about.
Burton, J. (2022, February 22). U.S. Geological Survey Releases 2022
List of Critical Minerals/U.S. Geological Survey. www.usgs.gov. https:/
/www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/us-geological-survey-releases-
2022-list-critical-minerals.
Epiroc. (2023). Exploration. Epiroc. Retrieved December 28, 2023, from
https://www.epiroc.com/en-za/applications/mining/exploration.
Heiken, G., Vaniman, D., & French, B.M. (2005). Lunar sourcebook: a
user's guide to the Moon. Cambridge University Press; Houston, TX.
International Energy Agency. (2021). Executive Summary--the Role of
Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions--Analysis. IEA. https://
www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-
transitions/executive-summary.
Meyer, C. (2007). 70001-70006 Deep Drill Core Frozen samples. Lunar
Sample Compendium; Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. Retrieved
December 28, 2023, from https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lsc/
A17drill.pdf.
Natural resource/ecology. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://
www.britannica. com/science/natural-resource.
O'Callaghan, Jonathan. ``How SpaceX's Massive Starship Rocket Might
Unlock the Solar System--and Beyond.'' MIT Technology Review, 7 Dec.
2021, www.technologyreview.com/2021/12/07/1041420/spacex-starship-
rocket-solar-system_exploration/.
SpaceX. (2023). Starship. SpaceX. https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/
starship/.
Wilhelms, D.E. (1993). To a rocky moon: a geologist's history of lunar
exploration. University Of Arizona Press.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Mr. Sundby. I now recognize
Dr. Autry for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GREG AUTRY, DIRECTOR AND CLINICAL PROFESSOR, SPACE
LEADERSHIP, POLICY, AND BUSINESS, THUNDERBIRD SCHOOL OF GLOBAL
MANAGEMENT, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
Dr. Autry. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
and honorable members of the Committee. I am testifying on my
own behalf. The views expressed here are not the views of any
organization. I will speak on the specific strategic
significance of extraterrestrial resource extraction in the
context of China's competitive space development agenda. My
remarks are not intended to disparage the people of China. They
are aimed at the corrupt dictatorship that exploits its people
and threatens our planet.
I also appreciate the non-partisan nature of space policy.
Seeing this hearing, Dr. Ajay Malshe, a colleague of mine
from Purdue, sent me a note. He wrote, ``Strategic materials
and manufacturing have always created new, real wealth. America
has handed that source of wealth to other nations in every key
sector, from semiconductors to aerospace. Space is a new
frontier, and offers a second chance to revise that era and to
go from being consumers to makers. That process must begin with
the supply of basic factor inputs, including minerals.''
Dr. Malshe's comments underscore how appropriate it is for
this important decision to be held now in this Committee. Dr.
Malshe's observations are driven by a Keynesian economic
perspective which prioritizes consumption above production.
When our economy slows, the prescription is always stimulate
the consumers into the mall. This has funded a dangerous
military dictatorship and pushed us into stagflation.
The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, harbors no
delusions about the source of national wealth and power. It is
laser-focused on capital, resources, and productive capacity,
as we once were. China buys mines and lands in Africa, Latin
America, and even in the United States, and then blocks others
from buying theirs.
Earth's moon, on the other hand, is roughly the size of
Africa, is covered with impact craters, and some of these are
composed of nickel, iron, and platinum group metal asteroid
cores. Analysis of NASA data suggests that an enormous mass
concentration is buried near the moon's south pole. Dr. Peter
James of Baylor University describes that as a pile of metal
five times larger than the Big Island of Hawaii.
NASA's Psyche mission will be the first to visit a metal
asteroid. The press has suggested that mining Psyche will make
us all billionaires. The reality is that when we do learn to
mine these materials, market prices will adjust, but everyone
on Earth will lead richer lives.
AstroForge of Huntington Beach, California is focused on
the return of important platinum group metals that are rare
here on Earth. Trans Astra is planning on mining ice near the
poles for water, as well as oxygen and hydrogen for rocket
power. Origin Space of Shenzhen, China, on the other hand, has
raised 150 million yuan, and China's moon czar is all in on the
idea of extracting helium 3 from lunar regolith for fusion
power.
The Chinese know that space mining challenges are
surmountable and will produce positive externalities, and they
are working on it now. Mining on the moon and asteroids,
processing ore and delivering products to our markets in space
or Earth is not simple and will not happen quickly. It will
demand advances like AI-controlled mining equipment,
automation, and nuclear power solutions. Technological spin-
offs from the first space race enriched our nation and
transformed the world. Technologies required for space mining
will also be applicable to Earth.
I know some will suggest that we halt space development
until we deal with every problem on Earth, or until we can
ensure that resources are equitably distributed for everyone on
Earth. I appreciate that. But the CCP will continue without
regard to rights or rules, and they will leverage their
monopolies against nations large and small. Any delay in
America's development of space resources, no matter how well
intended, will leave the field to that rapacious regime.
I have some recommended actions for Congress.
Provide additional R&D funding for dual-use technologies
that enable both space resource extraction and advanced
terrestrial mining, including the detection of subsurface
mineral deposits and AI-enabled autonomous deep mining systems.
Support a permanent and sustainable presence on the moon
with our partners in the Artemis Accords.
Appropriate additional funding to NASA's Science Mission
Directorate for continued exploration of lunar and asteroid
resources.
Appropriate additional funding to DOE and NASA's Space
Technology Mission Directorate for the development of nuclear
space power solutions.
Further clarify our interpretation of the Outer Space
Treaty and language that supports a legal framework conducive
to the development of space resources by private actors,
including the security of exclusive operating areas and ways
that will allow space mining to be transferrable and
collateralizable.
Clearly direct the U.S. space force to prepare for the
future protection of American commerce in cis-lunar space and
celestial bodies.
Let me close with a quote often attributed to Eleanor
Roosevelt that I think speaks to the topic of why we should do
this now. She said, ``The future belongs to those who show
up.'' Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Autry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Greg Autry, PhD, Director of Space Leadership,
Policy, and Business, Thunderbird School of Global Management,
Arizona State University
Introduction
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Greg Autry, and I am a Clinical Professor and
the Director of Space Leadership Policy and Business at the Thunderbird
School of Global Management, a unit of Arizona State University. I also
have an appointment as Affiliate Professor at ASU Interplanetary
Initiative and as a Visiting Professor in the Institute for Security
Science and Technology at Imperial College London. I serve as Vice
President for Space Development at the National Space Society. I am
testifying on my own behalf and the views expressed here are not
necessarily the views of any organization.
My testimony will focus on the strategic and economic significance
of extraterrestrial resource extraction in the context of China's
growing dominance of terrestrial mineral supply chains and aggressive
plans for space development. I want to be clear that my remarks on that
competition are in no way intended to disparage the admirable nation of
China nor its hardworking people. I am excited by their passion for
space and their scientific achievements in that domain. My criticisms
are aimed entirely at the corrupt, nominally communist, dictatorship
that exploits its own people and threatens our entire planet.
Context--We Have Set Ourselves Up for Failure
Dr. Ajay Malshe, a colleague of mine from Purdue and an expert in
space manufacturing, sent me a note before this hearing. He wrote,
Strategic materials and manufacturing have always created new
real wealth. America has handed that source of wealth to other
nations, in every key sector from semiconductor to aerospace.
Space is a new frontier and offers a second chance to reverse
that error, and to go from consumers to makers. That process
must begin with the supply of basic factor inputs, notably
minerals.
Dr. Malshe's comments underscore how appropriate it is for this
important discussion to be held in this committee. As the 21st century
unfolds, the United States finds itself being displaced on the
geopolitical and economic stage, by an aggressive and mercantilist
competitor. A primary cause of the American decline that Professor
Malshe observes has been the adoption, during the last century, of a
Keynesian economic perspective which prioritized consumption above
production and investment. We routinely hear Americans referred to as
``consumers'' and when our economy falls ill, the Rx is always fiscal
and monetary stimuli designed to get American ``consumers'' back into
the shopping malls, buying more Chinese goods, produced from a global
supply chain of raw materials increasing controlled by the
authoritarian state.
This naive economic strategy is like prescribing sugary cough syrup
for pneumonia. It helps the financial press feel better for a couple of
quarters, getting us through another election cycle; but it has bred
staggering deficits and more recently it has pushed our economy toward
stagflation. Worse, this process has funded and legitimized a genocidal
regime and created a near peer military threat that requires ever
increasing DoD budgets to defend against.
For all its many faults, the Chinese Communist Party harbors no
delusions about the sources of national wealth and power. It has been
strategically focused on resources, education, capital, and productive
capacity. This is basically the system that Alexander Hamilton outlined
in his 1791 report to Congress on Manufacturing. Using the ``American
System'', China strides across the world stage like a 19th century
imperial power. While our economists worry about whether Americans will
buy enough Chinese made stuff this holiday season, China is buying up
mines, wells, and farmland in Africa, Latin America, and even in our
own nation!
A couple of decades ago, most of the world's rare earth elements
were mined and processed in California at Molycorp's Mountain Pass
Mine, near the Nevada border. Then China began to aggressively strip
mine and process these elements with no regard for the environment. Tim
Maughan of the BBC writes about the resulting toxic environment that he
found in Mongolia:
It's a truly alien environment, dystopian and horrifying. The
thought that it is man-made depressed and terrified me, as did
the realisation that this was the byproduct not just of the
consumer electronics in my pocket, but also green technologies
like wind turbines and electric cars that we get so smugly
excited about in the West. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maughan, Tim. ``The dystopian lake filled by the world's tech
lust'', BBC, February 22, 2022. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/
20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
The CCP's willingness to destroy the environment of occupied
Mongolia for competitive advantage and to dump the resulting production
far below market price, shuttered the U.S. mine. Having obtained a
global rare earth monopoly, they jacked up pricing by double and triple
digits. When the California mine reopened it was in a partnership with
a Chinese State Owned Enterprise, under an agreement to ship all of the
ore to China for processing. Meanwhile China threatens us with rare
earth embargos as a tool to manipulate U.S. policy; \2\ compelling DoD
to fund a small domestic processing effort with taxpayer dollars.\3\
Seriously! You can't make this up!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Navarro, Peter and Autry, Greg. Death by China: Confronting the
Dragon--A Global Call to Action, 2010. Pearson. (p. 64).
\3\ Easley, Mikayla. ``U.S. Begins Forging Rare Earth Supply
Chain'', National Defense, February 10, 2023. https://
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/2/10/us-begins-forging-
rare-earth-supply-chain
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this has been no Ricardian free trade paradise. As they gobbled
their way across the globe, Chinese law prevented foreigners from
owning or controlling resources inside of China. Now that we've awoken
to how foolish we have been, we face a difficult supply chain problem.
Space Resources Offer Solutions
One answer to this problem is about 240,000 miles away. The surface
of the Earth's Moon is roughly equivalent to the entire continent of
Africa. Having been formed some four and half billion years ago in the
collision of the Earth with a wayward protoplanet, our Moon shares many
of the material properties of the Earth, with a few important
differences. Measurements of the ratios of elemental isotopes,
including oxygen and titanium found in Apollo samples confirm that the
moon is composed of the same materials which form the Earth's crust.\4\
Much of what we use to live and prosper are found in abundance there.
There are also things we may find only on the Moon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Zhang, Junjun, et al. ``The proto-Earth as a significant source
of lunar material.'' Nature Geoscience 5.4 (2012): 251-255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any good look at our celestial neighbor reveals thousands of
asteroid impact craters and a few huge ``basins'' created by hits from
supermassive planetesimals. These impactors were often composed of
nickel-iron, platinum group metals, and even rare earth elements. Some
of these will have interacted with molten lunar crust and water and may
have been distributed into the Moon's crust or flowed into veins. Some
of the cores may be solidly intact. Much of our minable mineral wealth
that we extract from Earth is the result of similar past impacts.
Strategic Locations
The likelihood of buried metallic cores and concentrated infusions
of minerals makes a few areas of the Moon strategically attractive.
Most notably the Southern Polar regions of the Moon appear to contain a
massive ``metallic structure.'' Research of the Moon's unique
gravitational anomalies, based on data from NASA's GRAIL mission,
suggest an enormous mass concentration (mascon) is buried beneath the
Moon's Aitken Basin. The study's lead author, Dr. Peter James of Baylor
University, has suggested that the anomaly is, ``a pile of metal five
times larger than the Big Island of Hawaii.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Goodrich, Terry. ``Mass Anomaly Detected Under the Moon's
Largest Crater'', Baylor University, June 10, 2019. https://
news.web.baylor.edu/news/story/2019/mass-anomaly-detected-under-moons-
largest-crater [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
This anomaly has a minimum mass of 2.18 1018 kg and
likely extends to depths of more than 300 km. Plausible sources
for this anomaly include metal from the core of a
differentiated impactor or oxides from the last stage of magma
ocean crystallization.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ James, Peter B., et al. ``Deep structure of the lunar South
Pole-Aitken basin.'' Geophysical Research Letters 46.10 (2019): 5100-
5106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--James, et al., Nature
Of course, metallic asteroids can also be found in space. Thousands
of them are found beyond the orbit of Mars and several near-Earth
objects wander closer to our own planet. NASA's recently launched
mission to the main belt asteroid Psyche will be the first to visit
what we suspect is the massive metallic core of an unformed planet.\7\
It may contain more precious metals than have been mined in all of
human history. The plucky spacecraft will beam back immensely valuable
data from that metal world. There has been a great deal of enthusiasm
in the press about how mining Psyche, or a near Earth object like Eros,
could make us all billionaires.\8\ The reality is, of course, that if
we learn to extract and return these materials, market prices would
adjust significantly, but the more important point is that everyone on
Earth would indeed lead richer lives without additionally impacting our
environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://psyche.asu.edu [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
\8\ Carter, Jamie, ``No, NASA's Asteroid Visit Next Week Won't Make
Us All Billionaires'', Forbes, October 2, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/
sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/10/02/no-nasas-asteroid-visit-this-week-
wont-make-us-all-billionaires [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moon's southern polar regions also appear to contain large
reserves of water ice--which is indispensable for human occupation and
operations. U.S. firms, such as Trans Astra, are looking at ``mining''
ice on the Moon for water as well as for the oxygen and hydrogen,
rocket propellants that can be easily extracted from water with solar
or nuclear power.
Mining on the Moon and asteroids, processing ore in situ, and
delivering products to markets in space or on Earth are not easy or
straightforward tasks. Space is a harsh environment. Partial or zero
gravity, a cold vacuum, and constant radiation exposure demand new
mining equipment, processes, as well as a great deal of AI controlled
automation. The energy required to move these materials to the orbits
where they will be most useful can be very significant. Increasing our
ability to deliver significant volumes of materials, or finished goods
from orbit back down to the Earth will require new vehicles and reentry
technologies.
Scrappy Entrepreneurs are Running America's Race with Limited Resources
Space is hard and a couple of high-profile space mining companies
have already failed without returning anything to Earth or to their
shareholders. As a scholar of technology entrepreneurship, I was not
surprised by this, and it should not dissuade us from continuing to
pursue this opportunity. Does anyone know recall who the first personal
computer company was? It wasn't Apple. Who developed the smartphone?
Again, not Apple.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The first commercial personal computer was the Altair 8800
offered in 1975 by a New Mexico startup named MITS. The first
smartphone was the Treo produced in 2002, by a company named
Handspring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, new companies are stepping forward and raising capital,
including AstroForge of Huntington Beach, California and the U.K.'s
Asteroid Mining Corporation. Both of these startups are focused on the
return of platinum group metals (PGM), like iridium and palladium. PGMs
have a number of critical industrial applications, particularly as
catalysts in chemical processes, including the catalytic converters
that reduce emissions from automobiles. Unfortunately, PGMs are among
the rarest elements on Earth and their production is inconveniently
dominated by Russia and South Africa. The U.S. Department of Energy has
called for American leadership in PGM production.\10\ Space may offer a
long-term path to that leadership position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Achieving American Leadership in the Platinum Group Metals
Supply Chain'', U.S. Department of Energy, February 24, 2022 https://
www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1871584 [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to be left behind, China has Origin Space, a nominally
commercial firm located in Shenzhen. Origin Space has raised CNY150M or
approximately $20 million USD, making it better funded than its small,
Western competitors.\11\ The firm has already launched a test
satellite, NEO-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/origin-space/
company_financials [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's About the Technology, Not Just the Minerals
These firms are popping up because the challenges of space mining
are surmountable and the nation whose firms succeed will benefit from
many positive externalities. The AI automated technologies required for
mining on the Moon are highly applicable to Earth, where we must dig
increasingly deeper to find new materials. Investment in one can
provide American competitive advantages in both. Solar energy is
abundant in space and increasing the efficiency of photovoltaic systems
to power electric thrusters, perhaps using new classes of propellants,
would benefit all manners of space transportation as well as increase
our options for clean energy on Earth. Developing nuclear propulsion
and nuclear power solutions for the lunar surface are key NASA
objectives and would be of great benefit to the US Space Force in the
future. Space mining can benefit from and assist with these nuclear
solutions, which may someday return clean energy solutions for Earth.
Even if we never return minerals from the Moon, we will benefit
from the effort to do so. We would not have the solar PV or fuel cells
we enjoy today if it were not for space applications driving those
technologies decades ago.\12\ The hundreds of pounds of Moon rocks
returned by Apollo astronauts, produced no direct revenues, but the
First Space Race produced unexpected spinoffs that have transformed the
world. Who knows what the 21st century equivalent of GPS or the
Internet \13\ will turn out to be and how they will benefit our nation
and everyone on Earth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Autry, Greg. ``Space policy, intergenerational ethics, and the
environment.'' AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition. 2011.
\13\ Autry, Greg. ``Space policy, intergenerational ethics, and the
environment.'' AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition. 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
America Must Lead Here
It is important to note that this bright future only materializes
for everyone if America takes the lead and space minerals are extracted
and sold by private actors in a free market. We should not expect
Chinese state-controlled exploitation of the Aitken Basin mascon or the
asteroid Eros to play out any differently than their terrestrial rare-
earth monopoly or territorial aggression in the South China Sea have.
We should expect the CCP to act without regard to anyone's rights,
extract monopolistic rents, and then leverage their competitive
advantage for political and military concessions from nations large and
small. China's authoritarian leaders will, of course, cloak their
aggressive space actions in the usual propaganda of greenwashing,
insincere calls for international cooperation, and meaningless phrases
extolling their supposedly virtuous nature.
Before you are tempted by calls for ``cooperation rather than
competition in space'' or naive suggestions that America should halt
space development until we can ensure that space resources are
equitably distributed for everyone on Earth, let's take a hard look at
how that has worked on Earth. While the examples of the CCP's
malfeasance and duplicity could overfill my testimony, let's consider
the Galapagos islands. Darwin literally unraveled the mysteries of life
on these starkly beautiful isles and the Ecuadorian government has
worked hard to preserve this UN Natural Heritage Site. Satellite radio
maps, from Hawkeye 360, show a constant ring of radio activity around
the islands. These are hundreds of Chinese fishing and processing ships
and their GPS transponders showing them just outside of Ecuador's
economic exclusion zone. The mayor of Santa Cruz province describes
their operations best:
They are killing the species we have protected and polluting
our biota with the plastic waste they drop overboard. They are
raping the Galapagos. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Gibbs, Stephen, ``Huge Chinese fishing fleet accused of
`raping' Galapagos on industrial scale.'', October 20, 2020. https://
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-chinese-fishing-fleet-accused-of-
raping-galapagos-on-industrial-scale-m08lxd60j [last accessed Dec. 9,
2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Angel Yanez Vinueza
If simply hanging off the coast and ``legally'' killing everything
that swims and polluting the Earth's most pristine ecosystem were not
bad enough, satellite tracking of more subtle radio signals has
revealed something more nefarious. Chinese trawlers routinely switch
off their AIS transponders to ``go dark'' and then violate Ecuador's
waters in order to move their floating slaughterhouses closer to
shore.\15\ This has been going on for years in plain sight while China
continues to promote internationalism and pretend it is a globally
responsible actor. Any well-intended delay in U.S. efforts to develop
space resources will simply put more of those resources into the hands
of this rapacious regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Datta, Anusuya, ``Satellite data nails Chinese fishing fleet
near ecologically sensitive Galapagos Islands'', Geospatial World,
October 1, 2020. https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/satellite-data-
nails-chinese-fishing-fleet-near-ecologically-sensitive-galapagos-
islands/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, space also holds treasures we can't find on Earth. One of
these is an isotope of Helium that contains just a single neutron.
Helium 3 (3He) is extremely rare on Earth. Efforts to
isolate 3He from Helium during natural gas refining yield
only about a hundred parts per billion.\16\ However, it is believed to
be found in relative abundance on the Moon, where the solar wind
deposits it into the lunar regolith (dirt).\17\ Helium 3 has unique
properties that enable several specialized Earth-bound applications
including neutron detection, improved MRI imaging and cryogenic
research. Most significantly it is hypothesized that 3He
would be a preferrable fuel for nuclear fusion reactors, providing
emissions free energy with no residual radioactivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Shea, Dana A.; Morgan, Daniel (22 December 2010). The Helium-3
Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress (PDF) (Report).
Congressional Research Service. 7-5700. [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
\17\ E. N. Slyuta; A. M. Abdrakhimov; E. M. Galimov (2007). ``The
estimation of helium-3 probable reserves in lunar regolith'' (PDF).
Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVIII (1338): 2175 [last accessed Dec. 9,
2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the practically of 3He as an energy source remains
the subject of debate in the U.S., China is ``all in'' on the topic.
Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist for China's Lunar Exploration
Program has stated that, ``Each year, three space shuttle missions
could bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world.'' \18\
Last year, China verified they have detected the rare isotope in
samples returned from the Moon by their Chang'e 5 lunar mission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``Ouyang Ziyuan's Moon Dream Coming True,'' China Daily, July
26, 2006. http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/175923.htm [last
accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
\19\ Whittington, Mark, ``China has returned helium-3 from the
moon, opening door to future technology'', https://thehill.com/opinion/
technology/3647216-china-has-returned-helium-3-from-the-moon-opening-
door-to-future-technology/ [last accessed Dec. 9, 2023]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humanity is at a pivot point. We are about to leave the cradle of
our home planet to develop and populate the solar system. If we want
that expansion to carry the angels of our better nature into the future
and to benefit the Earth and everyone on it, America must lead. We must
not permit a genocidal dictatorship to define the future of humanity
nor gain further leverage over global supply chains.
Recommended Congressional Actions
1. Provide funding for R&D into dual use mining technologies that
enable both space resource extraction and advanced
terrestrial mining. Most importantly, support technologies
for the detection of subsurface mineral deposits and AI
enabled autonomous deep mining systems.
2. Support a permanent and sustainable presence on the Moon with our
partners in the Artemis Accords and in constructive
competition with the Chinese-Russian International Lunar
Research Station.
3. Allocate additional funding to NASA's Science Mission Directorate
for the continued exploration of lunar and asteroid
resources.
4. Allocate additional funding to DOE and NASA's Space Technology
Mission Directorate for the development of space power
solutions including nuclear.
5. Develop follow on legislation to Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act (CSCLA) of 2015 and work with our
partners in the Artemis Accords, in order clarify our
interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty in language that
supports a legal framework conducive to the development of
space resources by private actors, including the security
of exclusive operating areas in ways that will allow space
mining and other ``properties'' to be transferable and
collateralizable.
6. Clearly direct the United Space Force to prepare for the future
protection of American commerce in cis-lunar space and on
celestial bodies.
A quote often ascribed to Eleanor Roosevelt offers an appropriate
closing,
The future belongs to those who show up.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Greg Autry
Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
Question 1. How are space resources natural resources?
Answer. I'd be hard pressed to understand how space resource would
be ``unnatural.'' They are not fabricated by humans. They were created
by God or nature through the same natural process that created the
Earth and everything in our solar system. In fact, many of the metals
and minerals we mine from the crust of the Earth were deposited there
by the impacts of asteroids in the past. The heaviest materials present
in the original formation of the Earth sunk to the core and are
inaccessible to us.
NASA routinely refers to space resources as ``natural resources.''
Examples:
On their website NASA defines In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)
as follows ``ISRU is the harnessing of local natural resources at
mission destinations, instead of taking all needed supplies from Earth,
to enhance the capabilities of human exploration.'' (emphasis on
``natural resources'' added) https://www.nasa.gov/mission/in-situ-
resource-utilization-isru/
Another article is entitled ``NASA Challenge Seeks Ways to Use
Mars' Natural Resources for Astronauts.'' https://www.nasa.gov/news-
release/nasa-challenge-seeks-ways-to-use-mars-natural-resources-for-
astronauts/
Academics routinely refer to space resources as ``natural resources.''
Examples:
Coffey, Sarah. ``Establishing a legal framework for property rights
to natural resources in outer space.'' Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 41
(2009): 119.
Tronchetti, Fabio. The exploitation of natural resources of the
Moon and other celestial bodies: a proposal for a legal regime. Vol. 4.
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.
Jakhu, Ram, and Maria Buzdugan. ``Development of the natural
resources of the moon and other celestial bodies: economic and legal
aspects.'' Astropolitics 6.3 (2008): 201-250.
USGS believes that space resources are ``natural resources'' under its
domain. Examples:
Surveying natural resources was the key job Congress gave the USGS
when it was created on March 3, 1879 . . . In 2017 we published a study
that showed that the methods the USGS uses on Earth can be applied to
asteroid resources with only modest modification. https://www.usgs.gov/
index.php/news/usgs-prepares-assess-resources-moon
``The USGS realized that our congressional mandate to assess
natural resources extends to space'' Kestay said. At this time, the
USGS does not have a funded program to conduct full-scale assessments
of space resources. ``But we are anticipating that the USGS may be
directed to do so soon, and we are taking a number of steps to be
prepared for that possibility,'' he said. (Space News quoting Lazlo
Kestay, a USGS research geologist) https://www.space.com/41707-space-
mining-usgs-resource-survey.html
Relevance to the Natural Resources Committee
I see no reason why the location of resources would change their
nature or affect the relevance of this committee's oversight over them.
The fact they would be accessed via rockets and spacecraft doesn't
change the nature of the material. We would not insist that because
minerals are transported by rail, ship, or truck that only
Transportation & Infrastructure Committee could discuss those
materials. The technology of the mode of transport is far less relevant
than the economic and strategic importance of these natural resources.
Question 2. How can the House Committee on Natural Resources help
America secure the celestial mineral supply chain?
Answer. As I stated in my testimony I recommended six items, not
all of which are directly within the Natural Resources Committee's
portfolio but for which the committee could take an active role in
leading and supporting. My first recommendation is directly within the
committee's jurisdiction, and I believe that there funds in USGS and
other buckets that could be applied to this important task.
Provide funding for R&D into dual use mining technologies that
enable both space resource extraction and advanced terrestrial mining.
Most importantly, support technologies for the detection of subsurface
mineral deposits and AI enabled autonomous deep mining systems.
Additionally, appropriate the funding that Dr. Kestay is referring
to above. As he notes, the Astrogeology Science Center is ready and
waiting to do this work.
I also want to be clear that we are not talking about ``billions of
dollars'' as was oft repeated in the hearing. NASA is spending billions
to get us back to the Moon. DoDo is spending billions on space
capabilities. Natural Resources can leverage those huge expenditure and
accomplish a great deal with the judicious application of a few
$million. China is certainly far more than that to beat us to these
resources.
Form an Advisory Commission to the Committee or an Advisory
Committee to USGS on how best to utilize funding and resources and most
importantly coordinate with NASA and DoD lunar efforts. Appoint
induvial to that body that understand the science, engineering,
economics, business aspects of space mining. Ensure there are
individuals who have experience working with NASA and DoD leadership.
Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn
Question 1. What are the opportunities and barriers to greater
coordination and investment in space resources research within
academia?
Answer. I am convinced there are significant opportunities for the
coordination of research and investment in space resources within
academia. Firstly, there are a number of academic institutions already
doing this work, albeit on a shoestring budget. Among these:
The Colorado School of Mines
The University of Central Florida
Purdue
Arizona State University
University of Alabama at Huntsville
These schools and others could use funding or the opportunity to
access USGS grants. Some grants for technology development and the like
at USGS could perhaps be expanded to allow for space related
applications. I think this is particularly important in the ``dual
use'' category where work done on a space related project, such as
automated assaying equipment or AI enabled mining robotics, would
produce benefits for both space and terrestrial applications. This
addresses the relevance to ``problems here on Earth'' questions.
NASA is already working with these institutions in many ways
including running Robotic Mining Competitions for several years.
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-announces-robotic-mining-
competition-2/
https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/stem-engagement-at-nasa/
collegiate-miners-excavate-soil-for-nasas-robotic-mining-competition/
Provide funding for USGS to partner with NASA on this and other
academic projects and grants.
Additionally, it is important to not just spend the taxpayer's
money, but to create an environment that is conducive to public-private
partnerships. Leveraging the private sector is America's greatest
strength and how we beat China, which is certainly funding their
academics to devise ways to beat America to these resources.
There are billionaires, private equity firms, (friendly) sovereign
wealth funds and many other investors eager to get in on the ground
floor of America's commercial space boom. Most of them are investing in
rockets and satellites, but they understand the opportunity in lunar
and asteroid resources. Providing small grants to business schools with
space related programs so they may establish centers of excellence or
startup incubators would help attract this private capital into the
university ecosystem. These centers and incubators could connect
investors with researchers and entrepreneurs.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Dr. Autry. I now recognize Dr.
Milazzo for his 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MOSES P. MILAZZO, OWNER OF OTHER ORB, CHIEF
SCIENTIST FOR NASA'S PLANETARY DATA ECOSYSTEM, FLAGSTAFF,
ARIZONA
Dr. Milazzo. Thank you, Chair Gosar, Ranking Member
Stansbury, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr.
Moses Milazzo. I am the Founder and Owner of Other Orb LLC, a
successful small business that provides planetary science
consulting services to a variety of U.S. institutions,
including private and public universities, for-profit and non-
profit scientific organizations, and Federal agencies such as
NASA.
I appear today on my own behalf, and not as a
representative of any institution, agency, organization, or
business. I thank you for the opportunity and honor to present
testimony to this hearing. My goal through this testimony is to
encourage you to proceed with careful consideration of the
following aspects of any future space mining: resource and
energy development, ethical consideration of public investment
and returns, and ethical consideration of environmental and
human burden that may be created by said mining.
The near-term enabling energy technologies for space-based
mining will be solar panels and batteries. We have the
opportunity, with the rapid growth of alternative energy
sources and electric vehicles, to help develop more efficient
and more resilient solar panels to support and tap into
research and development of new, more robust and more energy-
dense battery technologies, and to expand the testing
environment of such batteries. Solar energy and EVs on our
roads and highways represent the most advanced testing
laboratory available for improving energy collection, storage,
and use, and the lessons learned can be applied to operations
in space.
To guarantee that the public will benefit from an
investment of public funds into space mining we need to ensure
that public funding will be allocated in an equitable manner;
anyone with the appropriate knowledge and skills will be able
to compete for this funding; public funding will not only go to
large and rich companies; public funding and the companies that
receive this funding will be well regulated; that monopolies
will not be permitted; that we will regulate the industry to
ensure public good is achieved through public funding; and that
this public funding does not create additional wealth
disparities within our communities.
We also need to consider who will be responsible for the
oversight of companies receiving Federal funding for space
mining. We have historically failed to enact effective
regulations during the earliest stages of a new industry. For
example, during the industrial age disasters such as burning
rivers were the result in part of an unregulated industry. We
now have the opportunity to consider not only whether and how
to fund this budding industry, but also how to ensure it
protects and benefits the public that pays for it.
Space mining endeavors will have far-reaching impacts for
humanity, and therefore anti-colonialism must be a central
tenet of our regulation of the space mining industry. It is
incumbent upon us, as we borrow from the future, to make
decisions that benefit as much of humanity as possible, both
today and far into the future. Just as various cultures hold
certain geographical sites and features on Earth sacred, many
cultures hold some planetary bodies sacred. We must seriously
consider the harm that mining planetary bodies may cause to
those cultures. Our concern for Apollo landing site
preservation is no different from the concern others have for
the preservation of whole planetary bodies in space.
A thorough and thoughtful plan for development of space
mining must include codified protections and cooperative
international agreements to preserve historical and cultural
treasures. The question of whether and, if so, how to mine in
space is one that needs careful consideration before a large
expenditure of public funds is made. We stand in a singular
position to do the right thing. We must use the lessons of
history and advances in technology to not only help people on
Earth in the near term, but to conserve our legacy for far-
future generations.
Now is the time to bring in all stakeholders to discuss
whether we should mine in space, how we might do so, and how
doing so may benefit everyone rather than just a few people.
The ideas and concerns I raise here are not exhaustive, but are
intended as a framework for starting a deeper and more detailed
dialogue.
To be clear, I am not opposed to mining in space.
Personally, I think that there may be more positive outcomes
than negative. But I am only one person. And as a scientist, I
want my ideas, concerns, and excitement to be peer-reviewed by
others with different perspectives. To that end, I urge the
convening of a committee composed of historians, cultural
experts, Indigenous representatives, ethicists, planetary
scientists, lawyers, archeologists, anthropologists, industry
experts, regulation and policy experts, and Federal agencies to
carefully consider the two main questions of whether and, if
so, how to encourage, regulate, and fund U.S. mining in space.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Milazzo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Moses P. Milazzo
Chair Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury, and members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Dr. Moses Milazzo. I am the founder and owner
of Other Orb LLC, a successful small business that provides planetary
science consulting services to a variety of US institutions, including
private and public universities, for-profit and non-profit scientific
organizations, and federal agencies such as NASA. I appear today on my
own behalf and not as a representative of any institution, agency,
business, or organization. Thank you for the opportunity and honor to
present testimony to this Hearing on The Mineral Supply Chain and the
New Space Race. My goal through this testimony is to encourage you to
proceed with careful consideration of the following aspects of future
space mining: resource and energy development, ethical consideration of
public investment and returns, and ethical consideration of
environmental and human burden that may be created by said mining.
I want to begin this testimony with a story about simple resource
management in remote locations. I was born and raised on a small, self-
subsistence ranch in the high desert of Northern Arizona. This ranch
was far beyond the reach of grid-tied utilities: our water was supplied
by a deep well into the Colorado Aquifer with a windmill-powered pump;
we used wood-burning stoves for cooking and heating; and our only
source of electricity were 12-volt car batteries used to power a radio
and some small lights when our kerosene lanterns were out of fuel. One
day in elementary school, I borrowed from the school library a book
about a technology called photovoltaics. I asked my parents to get a
solar panel for us to experiment with. We set up the solar panel to
charge a 12-volt car battery and shortly afterward, we added a small
black-and-white TV to our entertainment and news sources. The solar
panel substantially decreased the cost of lighting and listening to
music and the news on the radio and watching it on the TV; we no longer
had to purchase kerosene or charge the battery with a gasoline
generator. In this same book about photovoltaics, there was a section
about the use of solar power on NASA's first space station, Skylab. It
blew my mind that I, a poor kid on an off-grid ranch in the middle of
nowhere, was now listening to the radio using the same power technology
that NASA was using in space! My stepmom and two brothers still live on
that ranch and still power the home with wind power, solar panels, and
batteries.
Executive Summary
The question of whether and, if so, how to mine in space is one
that needs careful consideration before a large expenditure of public
funds is made. We stand in a singular position to do the right thing.
We must use the lessons of history, and advances in technology, to not
only help people on Earth in the near-term but conserve our legacy for
far-future generations. Now is the time to bring in all stakeholders to
discuss whether we should mine in space, how we might do so, and how
doing so may benefit everyone rather than just a few people. The ideas
and concerns I raise here are not exhaustive but are intended as a
framework for starting a deeper and more detailed dialogue.
To be clear, I do not believe in stalling or blocking mining in
space. Personally I think there may be more positive outcomes than
negative. But I am only one person and as a scientist, I want my ideas,
concerns, and excitement to be peer-reviewed by others with different
perspectives. To that end, I urge the convening of a committee composed
of historians, cultural experts, Indigenous representatives, ethicists,
planetary scientists, lawyers, archeologists, anthropologists, industry
experts, regulation and policy experts, and federal agencies (NASA,
USGS, NSF, EPA, etc) to carefully consider the two main questions of
whether, and if so, how to encourage, regulate, and fund U.S. mining in
space.
Energy and Resource Development
The first and most significant factor in our ability to conduct
space mining will be our ability to meet the vast energy requirements
necessary. Mining requires very large energy expenditures here on Earth
and will require even more in space. At this time, there's simply no
known, better technology for humans taking advantage of the vast
resources of solar energy than photovoltaics, the conversion of energy
from the sun into electric power. Photovoltaics is a fundamental
technology for enabling space exploration because burning fuels is a
particularly inefficient method for generating usable energy, and it is
an especially expensive and inefficient method of generating energy for
exploring space. On Earth, where we have abundant oxygen, we need only
store and transport the fuel to be burned, be it kerosene for a
lantern, gasoline for an internal combustion engine, or jet fuel for
the airplane that brought me to Washington, DC. But in space, to take
advantage of this kind of chemical energy, we would need to store and
transport both the fuel and the oxidizer, which is prohibitively
expensive and dangerous. We must therefore generate, store, transport,
and provide that energy in some other form. While some of the energy
will come in the form of nuclear energy, that source is already highly
regulated, and I find it unlikely that our government or other
governments will loosen those regulations. As such, the enabling
technology for space exploration and commercialization of space is and
will likely continue to be photovoltaics and batteries, which together
allow us to generate, transport, and store energy in space without the
massive inefficiencies of burning fuel.
Why does this matter? Because, to build a space mining industry, we
will need very high capacity, resilient batteries that can withstand a
variety of extreme environmental conditions and efficient and resilient
photovoltaics to feed those batteries. We regularly see deliberate
frustrations of developing photovoltaic and battery technologies
through short-sighted anti-alternative energy initiatives, attempts to
reduce funding for such technological advances, and anti-Electric
Vehicle campaigns across the nation. If we are to seriously consider
advancing our technology with the goal of acquiring essential minerals
from space, we must rapidly and substantially advance our battery and
photovoltaic technology. The most applicable, rapid-return development
for this technology comes from alternative energy and battery research
for the purposes of building electric vehicles of all sizes (including
electric mining vehicles). EVs are the best approximation we have for
testing and implementing new technologies that can be translated to
space mining and material transportation.
Ethical Public Investment
If we commit to advancing these enabling technologies and to
advancing the exploration of mining critical minerals in space, we must
carefully consider how best to protect public investment and encourage
a broad diversification of access to these technologies and to space.
As illustrated in recent news events, where a comment or tweet
spurred a major telecommunications CEO to shut down satellite internet
access to an entire nation, we should be careful of and wary of
companies who claim to have the public good in mind. It is not within
the strategic best interest of the United States to allow unregulated,
large monopolistic companies to dominate resource extraction in space.
The mining industry is capital intensive, which means these
businesses are more highly reliant on physical resources and capital
(machinery and equipment) than on labor; labor only accounts for 7-8%
of the cost of mining. The economics of space mining will be similar.
I know of no private companies that have sent any usable equipment
out of Earth orbit and into space without some degree of public
funding. Leaving Earth orbit is, like terrestrial mining, very capital
intensive, but there's very little to no monetary return on investment
in the short time periods traditionally expected by investors. This
means that for the foreseeable future, few or no private companies will
be leaving Earth orbit except with public funding, much less landing on
or surveying asteroids or the Moon for resources. The nascent U.S.
space mining industry will be dependent on U.S. federal funding so that
the research, development, and capital costs can be afforded without
the need to immediately meet investor expectations. There will be only
minimal reduction in capital cost even after the research and
development costs have been substantially reduced. For an extended
period of time, it will be incredibly expensive to build space-capable
machinery and to launch that machinery into space and it is unlikely
that any space mining company will realize immediate profits.
Because of this likely need for public funding of research,
development, and capital costs of the nascent space mining industry, it
is incumbent upon all of us to carefully consider the following.
First, Federal funding for the space mining industry will pick
winners and losers of this industry. Accordingly, we need to ask, will
the public funding be allocated in an equitable manner? Will everyone
with the appropriate knowledge be able to compete for this funding, or
will it mostly go to already-large and rich companies? How will federal
funding and the companies that receive this federal funding be
regulated? What kinds of monopolies will we permit, and how will we
regulate those monopolies to ensure public good is achieved through
public funding? Will this public funding create additional wealth
disparities within our community? Should we use the taxes paid by a
small business owner who farms buckeyes in Georgetown, OH, or a beef
cattle rancher in Verde Valley, AZ, or a struggling household to
benefit a large corporation that already has access to space?
In short: how will the public expenditures for space mining benefit
everyone?
Second, we also need to consider who will be responsible for the
oversight of companies receiving federal funding for space mining. We
have historically failed to enact effective regulations during the
earliest stages of a new industry--see the industrial age disasters
such as the fires on the Cuyahoga River that were the result, in part,
of an unregulated industry. We now have the opportunity to consider not
only whether and how to fund this budding industry, but also how to
ensure it protects and benefits the public that pays for it.
Environmental Considerations
There are obvious environmental concerns to be addressed here on
Earth arising from the likely exponential growth in mining for
resources to produce many times more space-capable rockets and
machinery than we currently produce. Space mining will incur
environmental impacts here on Earth. Who will be expected to bear the
fallout from those environmental impacts?
There are also, perhaps less obviously, environmental concerns for
the mining of an asteroid in space. First, mining companies may need to
park equipment in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) before sending it to the target
asteroid when the orbital geometry is most favorable; they may choose
to leave spent rocket boosters in LEO; or possibly allow the detritus
to fall back to the Earth's surface. Each of these possibilities
requires regulation and oversight. As evidenced by the Starlink
satellite system, we know that a massive constellation of objects in
Low Earth Orbit impacts our ability to scientifically survey the sky.
This is significant not only for people who like to look at the night
sky without light pollution or for scientists who study astrophysics
and astronomy. An exponential increase in space junk in Low Earth Orbit
would diminish the space mining industry's ability to detect both
valuable resources and potential hazards. We are dependent on Earth-
based instruments for gathering information about accessible asteroids.
Without clear skies, we could lose not only the ability to visually
enjoy our night skies and study our galaxy and the universe, but also
the ability to effectively advise the very industry that is leaving
behind this space junk.
We need to also consider the potential impact of hazardous debris
being ejected from an asteroid during the mining process and colliding
with Earth or affecting other space-based industries. Consider the
possibility that after some years of mining on an asteroid that will
pass near Earth, a mining company hasn't contained the unusable debris
it generated. As that asteroid approaches Earth, we may no longer be
able to use planetary defense technologies intended for large, mostly
cohesive asteroid bodies and we will be poorly informed of the size and
mass of debris that may threaten our atmosphere or surface, even if the
main body of the asteroid does not. Similarly, mining an asteroid
without careful consideration of how mining might impact the asteroid's
solar orbit could potentially threaten the Earth by shifting the
asteroid's orbit from a safe Earth flyby to a dangerous encounter.
Unregulated mining on the Moon could cause debris to enter low lunar
orbit and threaten historical artifacts such as the Apollo landing
sites and impact other developing industries such as spare tourism
To avoid these nightmare scenarios, we need a well-considered plan
for regulating mining activities on the moon or low-gravity bodies such
as asteroids. NASA's DART mission produced data that may be helpful in
creating a model for how much material might be disturbed from an
asteroid's surface into its orbital path where it might 1 day cross
Earth's orbital path.
As an avid outdoor enthusiast who frequents our nation's parks,
monuments, and protected wild spaces, and who adheres to the ``Leave No
Trace'' ethic, I also have recreation-related concerns about the
environmental destruction that may occur in an unregulated space mining
industry. Saturday afternoon before this hearing, I had the opportunity
to spend some time visiting Muir Woods National Monument north of San
Francisco, CA. During my walk through the Woods, I reflected on the
fact that President Theodore Roosevelt created the Muir Woods National
Monument in 1908, 115 years ago. I was quite thankful to both the donor
of the land and to the President for having the foresight to preserve
this unique natural, majestic space for future generations and this
made me contemplate whether someone 115 years from today might be able
to enjoy visiting heritage sites on, for example, the Moon or the
asteroid Bennu. Anyone who has spent time in the wilds across much of
America recognizes the beauty of living landscapes and we know from the
majesty of places like Death Valley that a landscape doesn't have to be
filled with fauna and flora to be beautiful and important to humanity.
Without a careful and deliberate approach to mining as an industry,
future generations may not have the opportunity to explore that
``Magnificent Desolation'' Buzz Aldrin described during the Apollo 11
mission.
While we need to invest time and caution into any decision to
implement space mining, we need to also consider the environmental-
related ethical question of whether, in light of the significant
environmental damage Earth-based mining causes, it would be ethical not
to mine asteroids. Often, critical mineral extraction on Earth can
involve mountaintop removal or open pit mining. Can we afford to
continue this kind of mineral extraction here on Earth, our home and
the only planet known to be capable of sustaining any kind of life?
Because to our current knowledge no asteroids are capable of sustaining
life, choosing to mine asteroids instead of Earth may be the more
ethical consideration. We must apply further legal, ethical,
scientific, cultural expertise to examining this question.
Cultural Considerations
Because any space mining endeavors will have far reaching impacts
for much of humanity, anti-colonialism must be a central tenet of our
regulation of the space mining industry. It is incumbent upon us, as we
borrow from the future, to make decisions that benefit as much of
humanity as possible, both today and far into the future.
This includes considering the cultural impact of potential damage
to historical and cultural sites. Do we want to preserve the sample
selection site from OSIRIS-REx's Touch-And-Go (TAG) sampling of the
asteroid Bennu? What about the golf balls Astronaut Alan Shepard hit
while on the Moon? How should we approach the historical artifacts of
our international partners and competitors? Will we allow mining on
Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which has the potential to cause
damage to the European Space Agency's Philae lander? And, just as
various cultures hold certain geographical sites and features on Earth
sacred, many cultures hold some planetary bodies sacred. We must
seriously consider the harm that mining planetary bodies may cause to
those cultures. Our concern for the Apollo landing site preservation is
no different from the concern others have for the preservation of whole
planetary bodies in space.
Accordingly, a thorough and well thought-out plan for development
of space mining must include codified protections and cooperative
international agreements to preserve historical and cultural treasures.
Conclusion
Space mining technology is not yet on our doorstep, but it is no
longer science fiction. At this moment, we stand in a singular position
to do the right thing. We must use the lessons of history and advances
in technology, to not only help people on Earth in the near-term but
conserve our legacy for far-future generations. Now is the time to
bring in all stakeholders to discuss whether we should mine in space,
how we might do so, and how doing so may benefit everyone rather than
just a few people. The concerns I raise here are not exhaustive but are
intended as a framework for starting a deeper and more detailed
dialogue. I recommend the convening of a committee composed of
historians, cultural experts, Indigenous representatives, ethicists,
planetary scientists, lawyers, archeologists, anthropologists, industry
experts, regulation and policy experts, and the several federal
agencies (NASA, USGS, NSF, EPA, etc) to carefully consider the two main
questions of whether, and if so, how to encourage, regulate, and fund
U.S. mining in space.
Supporting References:
Cornwall, Warren (2020) Catastrophic failures raise alarm about dams
containing muddy mine wastes. Science Magazine. https://bit.ly/3kfigCU.
Fladeland, L., Boley, A.C., & Byers, M. (2019). Meteoroid Stream
Formation Due to the Extraction of Space Resources from Asteroids.
arXiv:1911.12840. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12840
McDowell, J.C. (2020). The Low Earth Orbit Satellite Population and
Impacts of the SpaceX Starlink Constellation. ApJLett, submitted.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07446
Mercer-Mapstone, L., Rifkin, W., Moffat, K., & Louis, W. (2017).
Conceptualising the role of dialogue in social licence to operate.
Resources Policy, 54, 137-146. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/abs/pii/S0301420717301770
Meursing, S. (2017). Space Mining: Ethical Issues and Some Possible
Solutions. https://bmsis.org/space-mining-ethical-issues-and-some-
possible-solutions/
Metzger, P.T. (2016). Space development and space science together, an
historic opportunity. Space Policy, 37, 77-91. https://arxiv.org/abs/
1609.00737
Metzger, P.T. (2017). Economic Planetary Science in the 21st century.
In Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop, volume 1989 of LPI
Contributions, page 8126. https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/V2050/pdf/
8126.pdf
Pilchman, D. (2015). Three Ethical Perspectives on Asteroid Mining.
Commercial Space Exploration: Ethics, Policy and Governance, 135-147.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315572857-14/
three-ethical-perspectives-asteroid-mining-daniel-pilchman
Rivkin, A. (2020). Asteroid Resource Utilization: Ethical Concerns and
Progress. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.03369.pdf
Schwartz, J.S. (2016). Near-Earth water sources: Ethics and fairness.
Advances in Space Research, 58, 402-407. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/abs/pii/S0273117716301582
Schwartz, J.S., & Milligan, T. (2017). Some ethical constraints on
near-earth resource exploitation. In Yearbook on Space Policy 2015 (pp.
227-239). Springer, Vienna. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/
978-3-7091-4860-0_10
Tavares, F., et al. (2020). Ethical Exploration and the Role of
Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices. https://
arxiv.org/abs/2010.08344
Venkatesan, A., et al. (2019). Towards inclusive practices with
indigenous knowledge. Nature Astronomy, 3, 1035-1037. https://
arxiv.org/abs/2009.12425
Vidaurri, M., et al. (2019). Absolute Prioritization of Planetary
Protection, Safety, and Avoiding Imperialism in All Future Science
Missions: A Policy Perspective. Space Policy, 51, 101345. https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964619300803
Vidaurri, M. and A. Gilbert (2020) ``Environmental Considerations in
the Age of Space Exploration: The Conservation and Protection of Non-
Earth Environments.'' https://baas.aas.org/pub/2021n4i454/release/1
Wiegert, P. (2020). On the delivery of DART-ejected material from
asteroid (65803) Didymos to Earth. The Planetary Science Journal, 1, 3.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ab75bf
Ouellette, J. (2021). Remastered images reveal how far Alan Shepard hit
a golf ball on the Moon. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/02/
remastered-images-reveal-how-far-alan-shepard-hit-a-golf-ball-on-the-
moon/
U. Kansas (2023) Scholars say it's time to declare a new epoch on the
moon, the `Lunar Anthropocene' https://phys.org/news/2023-12-scholars-
declare-epoch-moon-lunar.html
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Moses P. Milazzo
Questions Submitted by Representative Stansbury
Question 1. Does China have mining aspirations on the Moon?
Answer. I believe so, but I am not a foreign policy expert. The
stated goals of the Chinese National Space Administration include in-
situ resource utilization (ISRU), which could be considered a precursor
to mining. Several capabilities demonstrated by Chinese missions
indicate they are hoping to establish a more permanent presence on the
Moon. For example, the Chang'e 4 mission included plant seeds that were
reported to have sprouted. Due to very low temperatures and a failure
to keep the seeds warm, the experiment was terminated in 9 days instead
of the planned 100. However, the experiment was successful in the sense
that it demonstrated it is possible for seeds to sprout within a closed
system on the Moon. On the other hand, this experiment may have been
simple science similar to NASA and the US Forest Service's
collaboration to bring hundreds of tree seeds from five species to
lunar orbit on Apollo 14 and return them back to Earth. Despite the
seeds being exposed to vacuum, they were successfully germinated on
Earth.
Despite such possible aspirations, the reality of space exploration
and exploitation are very different and sending a pot of soil with
seeds to space is a very early first-step. Remember, we have private
companies that promised to land a rocket on Mars by 2016 (and 2018 and
2020 and . . .). Space exploration for science is very difficult, but
space exploration for resource extraction is exponentially more
difficult and does not yet provide returns on investment. Many entities
have aspirations of mining on the Moon or asteroids but the reality is
that there are significant hurdles to achieving those goals.
Question 2. How far along is China in advancing space mining?
Answer. China is far from space mining. To date, China has returned
a sample of the Moon back to Earth with its Chang'e 5 lunar sample-
return mission in 2020. This sample had a mass of 1.7 kg. By
comparison, the US has a total of 382 kg of lunar materials that were
returned from the Moon with the Apollo missions; however, these samples
would not be considered ``mining.'' True mining requires significant
and rarely-discussed technological advancements.
Question 3. How accessible are critical minerals on the Moon?
Answer. The talk of untold riches in space is similar to the story
of El Dorado, the legendary and mythical city of gold that led many
explorers astray. In one sense, critical minerals are all over the
Moon--there are small amounts in nearly every scoop of lunar regolith
(soil). However, these critical minerals are not realistically
accessible and critical minerals that are most abundant on the Moon are
already easily accessible on Earth. Specifically, minerals that are
abundant on Earth, for example, plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, and
ilmenite, are also abundant on the Moon and on many asteroids. The
metals associated with these minerals include Calcium, Aluminum,
Silicon, Iron, and Magnesium. However, these are also highly abundant
on Earth and the relative costs to acquire these minerals on Earth
instead of in space are many orders of magnitude lower. Less common
minerals and metals (such as Rare Earth Elements or REEs) are, in many
cases, only available on the Moon and on asteroids in concentrations of
parts per billion (ppb), meaning one would have to process a billion
kilograms of material, at 100% efficiency, to obtain a single kg of
pure mineral or metal.
Mineral maps of REEs on the Moon and asteroids may appear to show
rich resources available at the surface, but this is only because the
maps are intended to show differences in mineral concentrations; what
appears to be a dramatic difference on the map may only be the
difference between 2 ppb and 0.5 ppb. At this point in time it is not
economically viable to process billions of kgs of material for the
reward of only a few kg of minerals on the Earth, much less in space.
While we might consider infrastructure materials (steel, aluminum,
etc) to be especially important to a space race that includes mining
and other infrastructure developments; we need to also keep in mind
other critical components of the infrastructure. For example, carbon is
essential in producing steel from iron but is only seen in
concentrations of less than about 100 ppb on the Moon. Carbon steel
typically has a carbon content of 0.05% to 2.1% by weight. Accordingly,
to make a metric tonne (1000 kg) of steel, we would need to gather
between 0.5 and 21 kg of carbon. If one plans to mine all of their
resources in space, that would require processing between 5 million and
210 million kg of material on the Moon to obtain the necessary 0.5 to
21 kg of carbon for producing 1 metric tonne of carbon steel. To
develop a realistic mining infrastructure on the Moon, we might need
several million metric tonnes of steel. In other words, we might need
to process up to 100 trillion kg of material to build the
infrastructure if we only use material acquired in space. A rough
estimate for the average mass of near-Earth asteroids is around a
trillion kg. While some of the near-Earth asteroids will probably have
higher carbon concentrations than others, the reality is that a mining
operation intending to acquire carbon and iron for creating
infrastructure components might need to process an entire asteroid, or,
more likely, several.
Carbon is just one of the many ``minor'' infrastructure components
required to see realistic returns on mining in space that either needs
to be acquired from somewhere in space or launched off the Earth.
Neither option would be cheap or easy.
In addition, to acquire and process these millions to billions to
trillions of kg of materials on the Moon, we would need very large
transportation networks (many hundreds to thousands of km of trains,
for example) to move these materials from their source to their
refining centers, and those networks will depend on battery and solar
power technologies as well as many materials acquired from the Earth
and launched into space. If we were to build the networks for mining on
asteroids and bringing materials back to Earth or to the Moon, we would
also need a similar ``train'' of rockets to transport those materials.
The infrastructure requirements to expand humanity from Earth to
anywhere beyond low Earth orbit are tremendous and incredibly complex,
meaning any such effort will be expensive.
Question 4. What are lunar ``mascons''?
Answer. Mascons are positive gravity anomalies relative to the mean
shape of the body. For the Moon, this usually means there is a
depression of some kind that has a higher gravitational pull than would
be expected if mass were missing from this area. These are almost
always in areas where there were large basaltic lava flows called
``mare basalts''. These ``mare basalts'' are similar to Hawaiian
basalts and consist mostly of pyroxene, plagioclase, and olivine, with
minor amounts of other minerals. While there might be small amounts of
critical minerals in some basaltic deposits on Earth or on the Moon,
the concentrations are such that it's simply not economically sensible
to go after these sources of minerals because on Earth, hydrothermal
systems have, over eons, concentrated these minerals for us for free.
If these deposits had valuable concentrations of critical minerals, we
would see terrestrial mining companies processing basaltic lava flows
on Earth. Hydrothermal systems are not known to have occurred on the
Moon or asteroids.
Related to mascons, there is a common misunderstanding regarding
the formation of impact craters that an impacting object remains at the
bottom of the resulting crater. However, most or all of the impacting
object is vaporized and material is spread all around the impacted
body, first as vapor that may be put into orbit (or may be pulled down
to the surface of the body), which cools, condenses, and eventually
joins the rest of the regolith on the surface. This wide dispersion of
the vaporized material means that the concentrations of whatever
material made up that impacting object are extremely low. This critical
misunderstanding cost an Earth-based speculator in Arizona his entire
fortune. Daniel Moreau Barringer staked a mining claim at what is now
known as Meteor Crater in Northern Arizona, believing that a 50-meter
diameter nickel-iron asteroid, with a mass estimated (by Barringer) to
be 100 million tons (or worth around $1B in 1903 dollars) had formed
the crater and was buried beneath the surface. In actuality, the
impactor had vaporized upon impact and had rained out over a wide area.
Pieces of this meteoroid can still be found in the surrounding area.
Barringer's work to find this imagined fortune greatly improved our
understanding of impact crater events, but it did nothing to make him
rich.
Question 5. What is Helium-3 (He-3)? What are its uses and how
accessible is it on the Moon?
Answer.
He-3 is an isotope of Helium that can theoretically be used as a
relatively clean fuel for fusion. However, this is currently a science-
fiction fantasy. We have no human-built operational fusion reactors
other than nuclear bombs (which do not use He-3). The only other known,
operating fusion reactor in our solar system is the Sun. Theoretically,
fusion reactors may someday be usable, and our national laboratories
may be on the verge of sustained nuclear fusion ignition in a
laboratory setting. But, for nearly a century, we have speculated that
we are ``just'' 30 years away from a solution for fusion power using
known fusion fuels like deuterium (D) and tritium (T). We have never
worked out a technological method for using He-3 in a fusion reactor
because it is far more difficult than D-T or D-D reactions.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2834/1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not only is the use of He-3 still far-future science fiction, its
concentrations are, at best, only in the parts per billion on the lunar
surface, so even if we could figure out how make He-3 fusion work, we
would have to mine billions of kg of material to get a single kg of He-
3. Moreover, containing and keeping He-3 pure and usable as a fuel is a
non-trivial challenge.
He-3 is a potential clean fusion source for far-future use, but is
not a practical goal in near-future commercial exploitation of space
and is probably a direct road to bankruptcy because of the significant
study still needed in physical laboratories before it could be ready
for use in Earth reactors, much less space-based ones.
Question 6. Some private companies are exploring methods for
processing minerals in space. How close are we to successfully mining
celestial objects and processing the resulting materials for use on
Earth?
Answer. We are in the early stages of forming theoretical methods
for processing minerals in space but are still decades away from
successful mining of celestial objects.
One company tried to put into practice a theoretical method that
imitates gravitation separation for processing mineral ore in low earth
orbit, but encountered multiple problems with its first experiment.
Gravitational separation is the least energy intensive method we have
for processing mineral ore on Earth and essentially uses the fact that
minerals all have different densities to separate them from each other.
On Earth, we can shake, agitate, or otherwise disturb a mixture of
useful minerals and less useful materials to separate them according to
their densities. A good example is panning for gold: we put some soil
that might contain gold into a pan of water and agitate it for a bit.
The water allows the less dense materials to float when agitated while
the more dense gold sinks. We remove those less dense materials and are
left with a more gold-rich soil. We can repeat the process to further
concentrate the gold in the soil. This process is similar to the
industrial processes used to separate large volumes and masses of
minerals from their ores.
There are several theoretical ways to imitate gravitational
separation for mineral processing in space, one of which is to use
magnetic fields to create the separation. This method uses the magnetic
properties of minerals rather than their densities to create separation
and is the method the space mining startup attempted. However, testing
the theory became impossible because of numerous spacecraft issues
directly conflicted with testing requirements. Specifically, large
magnetic fields generated on low-earth orbiting spacecraft interfere
with the spacecrafts' attitude and control systems and cause the
spacecraft to tumble out of control. The strength of the gravitational
field required for differential mineral processing is so large that it
would be nearly impossible to cheaply shield the spacecraft's attitude
control system from that magnetic field. The energy costs to scale this
magnetic field to process more than a few grams at a time become
astronomical.
Outside of Earth's orbit, gravitational separation could be
simulated in spacecraft under constant rocket acceleration that
generate the needed simulated gravity, but this is incredibly expensive
and would require a long time and a corresponding amount of fuel for
the separation to occur.
A centrifuge could be used to simulate gravity but again, for large
masses (in most cases billions of kg of material processed to obtain a
single kg of usable mineral), this becomes extremely expensive. We
might try to do this on the Moon, but the lunar gravitational field is
one sixth the strength of Earth's, so the time needed for processing
would be greatly increased and would require greater energy
expenditures. And, as noted previously, all of this is theoretical and
untested in any capacity.
Question 7. How could the circular economy on Earth be useful for
acquiring critical minerals?
Answer. Earth currently produces about 50 million tons of
electronic waste every year. In addition, we also generate huge amounts
of unmonitored non-electronics waste that contains critical minerals
and metals. Our landfills are overflowing with decades' worth of
electronic and electrical waste that hold critical metals and minerals
in concentrations thousands of times greater than our most productive
mines. There currently exists a secondary market of individuals who buy
old CPUs on popular auction websites to process and collect the gold
from those CPUs; even at very small scales, this is lucrative. At
scale, processing landfill and recycled materials for critical minerals
is probably the most lucrative approach to filling the gap in our
critical minerals needs; companies looking to seriously produce low-
cost precious metals and critical minerals would be wise to start with
landfills.
Question 8. Should the United States be concerned about its future
access to space, the Moon, or the rest of the Solar System considering
claims that foreign adversaries are investing in settlements and mining
projects in space?
Answer. I don't believe so. Our access to space is limited only by
our ability access near-Earth airspace; once a rocket moves away from
Earth and into space, its access to the Moon, asteroids, and the rest
of space increases with its distance from Earth. If a foreign adversary
wanted to threaten our access to space, it would have to do so as near
to the Earth's surface as possible, which raises a far different issue.
Once an entity begins operations in space, the danger posed by any kind
of adversary significantly diminishes.
While international space agreements could be improved and updated,
the reality is that once an entity has established a safe way into
space, its access to space is unlikely to be threatened by the presence
of another entity.
That's not to say foreign adversaries building access to space is
without potential danger. Most significantly, there are cultural
treasures in space, both human-made and natural, that may be threatened
by entities disregarding existing or future international agreements. I
believe a diplomatic approach, both within the United States and
internationally, is most likely to result in successful protection of
cultural artifacts, environmental conditions, human rights and lives,
and technological advancement.
The most consequential limitation on our ability to access space
will not come from foreign adversaries, but from our own willingness to
fund education and the necessary research for advancement in energy
resources. We are woefully behind other nations on crucial technologies
such as large capacity battery storage and solar power generation and
are expending pointless time and energy fighting ourselves over those
technologies and the ones they will need to replace (fossil fuels will
be useless in space). We have lost the edge on education; our national
fear of innovations in science, mathematics, and humanities education
has put us decades or more behind the technological advancements of
other countries. We fight our own workers and labor unions instead of
incentivizing them to be innovative and productive. If we want to lead
in space, we must return to our position as a global leader in
education, workers' rights, and human rights in general.
Question 9. Besides on Earth, is there currently any permanent
human presence in the solar system?
Answer. No. The closest anyone has to a permanent human presence in
the solar system is the International Space Station. We have robotic
space missions exploring the solar system, but the farthest humans have
gone outside of low Earth orbit is to the Moon. Eugene Cernan commanded
Apollo 17 (11 to 14 December, 1972) and was the last person to walk on
the Moon. The crew of Apollo 17 were the last humans to travel outside
of Earth's orbit.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Dr. Milazzo. I now recognize Ms.
Hanlon for her 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE HANLON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
AIR AND SPACE LAW, THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY, MISSISSIPPI
Ms. Hanlon. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
Subcommittee, I thank you for convening this hearing which
recognizes the ability to access and utilize extraterrestrial
natural resources must be considered as the United States looks
to the future of the mineral supply chain, and I thank you for
your invitation to testify.
My name is Michelle Hanlon. I am a space lawyer. I am the
Executive Director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the
University of Mississippi. I am the Co-Founder and President of
For All Moonkind, which is the only organization in the world
focused on protecting human heritage in outer space, like the
Apollo and lunar landing sites. And finally, I am also the
Founder and Executive Director of the Institute on Space Law
and Ethics.
I am heartened to see growing recognition of both the
promise of space resources and the fact that we find ourselves
once again in a space race. Only this time the stakes are much
higher than before. This race is not about prestige. It is
about access to resources that can benefit the lives of all
Americans, all humanity. And it is about the governance
framework that will support the management of these resources
and all future space activities.
Earth occupies a very small part of space. Around us are an
infinite source of resources. How we characterize the
extraterrestrial domain is important. The United States
considers space to be a unique domain of human activity, not a
global commons. This description of the cosmos allows for
responsible stewardship while leaving open possibilities we
have not yet had the opportunity to contemplate. Indeed, we may
one day agree that the broad expanse of space is susceptible to
not one, but several categorizations. It is important, vital
that we use our terrestrial experience to inform, not
constrain, our view of the universe and the management and use
of its resources.
Space is not a global commons, but nor is it a lawless
wonderland. However, the international regime governing
extraterrestrial activities was not designed for space resource
utilization. The treaty instruments were developed under the
guidance of President Eisenhower, with the primary goal of
keeping outer space for peaceful purposes. The Outer Space
Treaty has been largely successful in this regard, but it
leaves much susceptible to interpretation in other regards, a
dangerous circumstance.
For example, the Outer Space Treaty states that space shall
be free for exploration and use by all, which implies that
resource extraction is permissible, an interpretation President
Obama endorsed as U.S. law in 2015, and which is also enshrined
in the multilateral Artemis Accords. But the treaty also states
that a nation may not claim territory in space by any means.
Occupying a mineral-rich area of an asteroid could be
considered a territorial claim.
Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty requires that parties
act in space with due regard to the activities of others. Thus,
under the Outer Space Treaty, simply maintaining a presence in
one specific area of a celestial body might violate the non-
appropriation principle. However, the concept of due regard
suggests that if one entity is already occupying, others must
avoid interfering. This gives a tremendous advantage to those
who simply establish a presence first. So, the race begins.
The Artemis Accords proposed that ``due regard'' requires
others to respect reasonable safety zones around activities.
But what is reasonable? Without a more specific construct of
due regard, the entity that gets to a desirable area first can
easily make the argument that due regard reasonably requires
other parties to maintain a distance measured in kilometers in
order to assure the protection of their operations.
What is worse, these rules could by default apply not just
to one particular celestial body, but can become the foundation
for all extraterrestrial resource management, wherever the
source.
Currently, the United States' closest competitor in this
new space race is China. China has made no secret of its own
space resource utilization plans. And remember, winning
requires only getting there first. Once a spacecraft of any
kind lands or even crashes in a mineral-rich area, due regard,
it could be asserted, requires that no other entity approach
within 20 or more kilometers of that certain spacecraft,
thereby creating a safety zone that effectively excludes access
by others to any minerals found in that area.
We must accelerate our efforts to assure continued access
to extraterrestrial resources. This hearing is a first but
significant small step. U.S. policy as a whole, and not just
space policy, must acknowledge and embrace the vast resources
the universe offers. The United States must encourage and
increase support for commercial mining activities. The United
States must also continue to encourage the growth of the
Artemis Accords and work within the Accords and the United
Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to better
define due regard. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanlon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michelle L.D. Hanlon, Executive Director,
Center for Air and Space Law, University of Mississippi
and President and CEO, For All Moonkind
I. Introduction--It is a Race
Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Stansbury and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is Michelle Hanlon. I am a space lawyer and the
executive Director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the
University of Mississippi. We are the only ABA accredited law school in
the country to offer a Juris Doctorate degree with a concentration--as
well as an advanced master of laws--in air and space law. The
University of Mississippi possesses a deep tradition of research,
analysis, education and advancement in space law going back to the
1960s when the first international treaties governing space activities
were being negotiated. I am also the co-founder, President and CEO of
For All Moonkind, a nonprofit that is the only organization in the
world focused on protecting human cultural heritage in space, like the
Apollo lunar landing sites. We are a Permanent Observer to the United
Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, a position which
affords a view into international deliberations regarding space
activities.
Finally, I am the founder of the Institute on Space Law and Ethics,
an organization that brings together diverse perspectives on space
exploration Our mission is to ensure that ethical considerations
continuously serve a foundational role in shaping the legal and
normative frameworks governing the exploration and use of outer space,
with the goal of enhancing mutual understanding, transparency, trust
and the sustainable use of space and its resources for the benefit of
all humankind while minimizing misunderstandings and the potential for
conflict.
I am grateful for the opportunity to testify today in respect of
the Mineral Supply Chain and the New Space Race. It is without question
that the decisions made today with respect to the exploration and use
of space and its resources will have far-reaching implications for
future generations, and indeed, all humanity, whether in communities
here on Earth or elsewhere in the cosmos. Some regard space and its
resources as a savior of our Earth, able to provide energy and other
resources as our terrestrial supplies dwindle. Others will tell you
that space exploration is a wasted investment. But what is inarguable
is that humanity has greatly benefited from the use of assets in space.
It is also incontrovertible that the future sees only more dependence
on space assets and resources. We do not--we cannot--know what
solutions space may hold, and we will not unless we continue to explore
and expand into the upper reaches of space.
For these reasons, I am heartened to see growing recognition of
both the promise of space resources and the fact that we find
ourselves, once again, in a space race. Only this time, the stakes are
much higher than before. This race is not about prestige, it's about
access to resources that can benefit the lives of all Americans--all
humanity--and it's about the governance framework that will support the
management of these resources and all future space activities. Contrary
to popular belief, space is not a lawless wonderland. There are four
widely-ratified international treaties that govern space activities.
Negotiated in the 1960s and 70s, they provide a solid baseline.
Nevertheless, they are broadly worded, suffer from internal
inconsistencies and glaring gaps and are subject to varied
interpretations. Chief among the grey areas are questions related to
the ownership and use of extraterrestrial resources. For example, while
binding international law states that the exploration and use of outer
space shall be free for exploration and use by all, which implies that
resource extraction is permissible, it also states that a nation may
not claim territory in space, which calls into question how a space
resource mining operation would be able to protect its investment.
Given these and other grey areas, there exists a potentially serious
first mover advantage which the United States must understand and take
into consideration as it implements space and natural resource policies
and competes in this new space race.
II. The Outer Space Treaty Regime Was Not Designed for Space Mining
A. President Eisenhower Initiated Negotiations to Keep Space Peaceful
In October 1957, Sputnik 1 became the first human-made object to
reach space. Shortly thereafter, President Eisenhower initiated
negotiations to secure space for peaceful purposes. His efforts
ultimately led to the development by the United Nations (UN) of an ad
hoc committee, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space
(COPUOS), which was made a permanent UN body in 1959. The COPUOS above
all recognizes ``the common interest of [hu]mankind in outer space''
and ``the common aim that outer space should be used for peaceful
purposes.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.N.G.A. Res. 1472 (XIV) (Dec. 12, 1959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPUOS was the backdrop for the negotiation and implementation the
treaties which today govern space activities. The first, the Treaty on
Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and
Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the
Outer Space Treaty), was ratified in 1967. This Treaty, with 114
signatories including the United States (US), Russia, China and most
every spacefaring nation, enshrines the fundamental concept that outer
space ``shall be free for exploration and use by all.'' Essentially a
demilitarization instrument, the Treaty does not contemplate the
management and use of extraterrestrial natural resources. In fact, it
does not once mention the word resource. However, it does impose
limitations on the freedom of exploration and use. First, is the non-
appropriation principle, which stipulates that no country may claim
territory in space. And second, the Treaty requires that all activities
in space be conducted with due regard for the corresponding interests
of others.
Four other treaties related to sovereign space activities were
negotiated in the wake of the Outer Space Treaty. These are
colloquially known as the Rescue Agreement, the Liability Convention,
the Registration Convention and the Moon Agreement. As their names
suggest, these agreements respectively offer more detailed guidance on
how countries should act in relation to the rescue of astronauts;
responsibility and liability for damage caused by space objects; and
the registration of objects launched or intended to be launched into
orbit. The Moon Agreement was the international community's first
attempt to regulate the access to and management and utilization of
extraterrestrial natural resources. It has been ratified by only 18
States. The United States, China and Russia are not parties to that
Agreement and Saudi Arabia is withdrawing from the treaty in January
2024.
The bottom line is that there are gaps in the law which may be
filled by the first mover.
B. Space Cannot Be a ``Global Commons''
Earth occupies a very small part of space. Around us are an
infinite source of resources. How we characterize the extraterrestrial
domain is important. Many say that space is a global commons. The UN
defines the term ``global commons'' as ``those resource domains that do
not fall within the jurisdiction of any one particular country, and to
which all nations have access.'' \2\ Global commons require global
governance, a notion that has been executed well in only rare
circumstances. The UN identifies four ``global commons:'' the high
seas, the atmosphere, Antarctica and outer space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United Nations System Task Force on the Post-2015 UN
Development Agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notion that space is a global commons must be challenged.
First, the Outer Space Treaty does not identify outer space as a global
commons. Second, the very term ``global'' suggests that global commons
must be bound, in some way, to Earth. Things that happen in the high
seas, the atmosphere or even Antarctica could have direct impact on the
health and welfare of countries, communities and individuals around the
world. These areas also play an integral role in the health of our
global ecosystem and environment. If someone, entity, or country
operates a mine on a random asteroid in the Kuiper Belt, while the
ultimate impact will benefit human society by providing a new supply of
resources, it surely will not have a direct impact on the health and
welfare of Earth communities or the Earth's ecosystem (except, again,
perhaps as a benefit by moving heavy industry off-Earth).
Finally, the concept that the vast infinity of space is a human
resource domain is the utmost of anthropocentric hubris. Are we truly
asserting that all of space is the sole responsibility and domain of
Earthlings alone?
Despite the UN stance, the United States has never, as a matter of
international policy, considered space to be a global commons. A 2020
Executive Order issued by President Trump formalized this position and
characterized space, instead, as a unique domain of human activity.
This, is a far more flexible description of the cosmos as it allows for
responsible stewardship while leaving open possibilities we have not
yet had the opportunity to contemplate. Indeed, we may one day agree
that the broad expanse of space is susceptible to not one, but several
different categorizations. We must use our terrestrial experience to
inform, not constrain, our view of the universe and the management and
use of the resources it holds.
It is notable too that recently proposed legislation, the
Commercial Space Act of 2023, also includes a provision stating that
``outer space may not be considered a global commons.''
That said, the United States is bound by the Outer Space Treaty
which does place limits on space activities.
C. The Exploration and Use of Space is the Province of All Humankind
Article I of the Outer Space Treaty describes the exploration and
use of space as ``the province of all [hu]mankind.'' This is markedly
different from term used in Article 11 of the Moon Agreement which
characterizes the Moon and its natural resources as ``the common
heritage of [hu]mankind.'' It is an important distinction.
Ambassador Arvid Pardo of Malta is credited with introducing the
principle of ``common heritage of humankind'' as a system of resource
management in 1967 during the negotiation of the Law of the Sea
Treaty.\3\ The concept of was more fully developed by the United
Nations in a 1970 resolution which declares ``the sea-bed and ocean
floor, and the subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction, as well as the resources of the area, are the common
heritage of [hu]mankind.'' This means, the resolution goes on to note,
that these areas and resources ``shall not be subject to appropriation
by any means by States or persons, natural or juridical.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Statement of Mr. Pardo, 22nd Session of the United Nations
General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/C.1/PV.1515, 1516 (Nov. 1, 1967) (It
would ``be wise to establish some form of international jurisdiction
and control over the sea-bed and ocean floor underlying the seas beyond
the limits of present national jurisdiction.'').
\4\ U.N.G.A. Res. 2749 (XXV), Sec. 1 (Dec. 16, 1970).
The concept of ``common heritage'' as encapsulated in the Moon
Agreement suggests that: 1) no State or private entity may claim or use
resources until and unless authorized and approved by a, presumably,
United Nations-driven common management; and 2) any benefits which
accrue as a result of any exploitation or use must be equitably shared.
It is deeply significant that the Outer Space Treaty does not adopt
this nomenclature, suggesting that outer space and its resources shall
be considered and utilized in a manner different from that which
governs ``common heritage'' as described in the Moon Agreement or the
Law of the Sea.
Regardless of what is meant by the term ``province of all
[hu]mankind,'' the concept of freedom of exploration and use of space
is the guiding force governing space activities. This is further
buttressed by the additional agreement in the Outer Space Treaty that
``there shall be free access to all areas of celestial bodies.'' These
freedoms to explore, use and access are barely curtailed by the other
provisions of the Treaty. The only restrictions imposed on these
freedoms are that:
Exploration and use shall be carried out for the benefit
and in the interests of all countries (Article I)
States may not claim territory in space (Article II).
International law applies in space (Article III).
Nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass
destruction may not be placed in orbit or on any celestial
bodies (Article IV).
The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used
exclusively for peaceful purposes (Article IV).
All activities in outer space must be conducted with ``due
regard'' for the corresponding interests of others (Article
IX).
The benefits, non-appropriation and due regard principles, have the
most bearing on the extraction and use of extraterrestrial mineral and
other resources.
For clarity's sake, it is important to note here that the Treaty
does reach private, non-State activity. Article VI obligates countries
to assure that all ``national activities are carried out in conformity
with'' the Treaty. The Article also makes it quite clear that countries
bear ``international responsibility for national activities in outer
space . . . whether such activities are carried on by governmental
agencies or by non-governmental entities.'' In space, essentially,
everything that is done even by a nongovernmental entity is considered
to be done by the State even if it otherwise had no involvement in the
mission or activity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ To demonstrate how Article VI might affect space mining
activities, we turn to events that occurred in Low Earth Orbit in 2021.
On December 3, 2021, the Chinese government used a diplomatic message
known as a Note Verbale to complain that small satellites owned and
operated by SpaceX had forced them to implement ``preventive collision
avoidance'' measures to protect their space station on two separate
occasions. Helpfully, the Chinese government also took the opportunity
to remind all countries of their Article VI responsibilities. The
message was clear. US, you have created a space hazard by not properly
supervising your non-governmental entity and if something happens to
our space station or our astronauts, you will be liable. In its
response, the US chided the Chinese government for not reaching out
bilaterally, however, it also implicitly recognized US responsibility
for the privately-owned and operated SpaceX spacecraft even though it
was not undertaking any tasks at the behest of the US government. If a
private entity causes damage in space, the State in which the entity
was formed, or in which it may be considered a national, will be liable
regardless of the level of due diligence it may have exercised in
respect of the activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Space Mining Benefits All
Returning to the restrictions on freedom of exploration and access,
Article I is clear that any exploration and use shall be carried out
for the benefit and in the interests of all countries. Some would argue
that the concept of shared benefits means sharing monetary profits.
This is a very narrow view of the word ``benefit.'' The phrase also
offers no indication of when a benefit must accrue. Removing immediacy,
there is no doubt that every single country on Earth has benefited in
some way from space activities, be it from remote sensing satellites
that share weather predictions and climate information to GPS and
telecommunications.
Space mining will also provide benefits to all countries, indeed
all humanity on multiple levels. First, as we have seen so often with
space activity, the tools developed to implement off-Earth mining
operations require technological advancement that will enhance the
human experience on Earth in ways we cannot even begin to imagine.
Mining for water in particular, may provide direct benefits to areas
here on Earth where water is a scarce resource. Second, mining will
also increase our scientific knowledge of the universe around us.
Understanding the composition of our celestial neighbors will provide
much insight which can ultimately help us better care for our Earth.
Third, extracting and using off-Earth resources will make it more
efficient for us to explore further into the reaches of the Universe,
again compounding our potential scientific discovery. Finally,
discovering and mining resources on other celestial bodies will relieve
the pressure on our own and help us protect and even heal our
terrestrial environment and end our reliance on children and other
laborers earning less than $2 a day mining for cobalt in places like
the Congo.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/
1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the short term, it may appear that only a select few entities--
whether national or private--have the capability to even consider
commencing mining operations in space. There was a time that only a
select few entities had the capability to sustain a national or private
airline, and yet today the air industry is the backbone of our global
economy. That said, care must be taken to assure that benefits are
accessible to all, including future generations which implies that
while the multiple benefits described above create an ethical
imperative to develop extraterrestrial mining operations, there is an
equal imperative to do so responsibly.
III. Opportunity for Interpretation Creates a First Mover Advantage
A. The Non-appropriation Principle: So Much Left Open
Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states in full: ``Outer space,
including the Moon and other celestial bodies is not subject to
national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or
occupation, or by any other means.''
1. National Appropriation Does Not Apply to Extraction
Article II could have been interpreted to apply both to territory
in space and the resources in that territory. However, reference must
be made once more to the Moon Agreement which clearly states in Article
11(3) that ``[n]either the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor
any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property
of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental
organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of
any natural person.''
Once again, it is deeply significant that the Outer Space Treaty
does not include this language, suggesting that Article II does not
apply to parts of celestial bodies or the resources contained therein.
As far as resources contained in celestial bodies, it is also worth
noting that each of the US, China, Russia and Japan have obtained
material directly from the Moon or other celestial body for use--albeit
scientific rather than commercial--without objection by any other
country. This supports the interpretation that the non-appropriation
principle does not apply once a resource is extracted from its source.
The US interprets Article II in this way. The Commercial Space
Launch Competitiveness Act,\7\ signed into law by President Obama in
2015, recognizes commercial property rights in resources extracted from
celestial bodies stating unequivocally that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, H.R. 2262,
114th Cong. (2015).
A United States citizen engaged in commercial recovery of an
asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter shall
be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource
obtained, including to possess, own, transport, use, and sell
the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance
with applicable law, including the international obligations of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the United States.
President Trump reaffirmed this in his 2020 Executive Order which,
among other things, proclaims that ``American should have the right to
engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in
outer space,'' and urges executive departments to ``take all
appropriate actions to encourage international support for the public
and private recovery and use of resources in outer space.'' Luxembourg,
United Arab Emirates and Japan have similar legislation and India has
recently released a space policy that also supports this
interpretation.
It is also captured in the Principles for Cooperation in the Civil
Exploration and Use of the Moon, Mars, Comets, and Asteroids, known
colloquially as the Artemis Accords.\8\ Although these Accords are not
a binding instrument, the Accords have been agreed by 33 nations (as of
December 8, 2023). Included in the Accords is the affirmation ``that
the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute a
national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty . .
.'' Neither China nor Russia has signed the Artemis Accords.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Artemis Accords, NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/specials/
artemis-accords/img/Artemis-Accords-signed-13Oct2020.pdf (last visited
Apr. 17, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What About Parts of the Moon?
The language of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty can be
interpreted to mean that no nation may claim the whole of outer space,
the Moon or any other celestial body as territory. Arguably, then, it
is silent as to parts. Does this mean a nation can claim a part of the
Moon, or a part of an asteroid so long as it does not claim the whole?
Arguments can be made for this interpretation.
3. If You Mine it, You Own it, But Can You Protect it?
Interpreting Article II to permit space resource extraction is just
a first step. How can any country or private party establish a resource
extraction operation if territory cannot be claimed?
Clearly, if a country is simply occupying or using an area in
space, it cannot be considered that country's territory, but what
rights does it, or a private entity acting in conformity with the Outer
Space Treaty have with respect to that occupancy? And what is meant by
the concept of ``by any other means?'' These provisions conflict with
other parts of the Outer Space Treaty. Pursuant to Article VIII,
objects left in space remain under the ownership and control of the
State that put them there. In fact, pursuant to Article VII of the
Outer Space Treaty and Article III of the Liability Convention, States
are ``internationally liable'' for damage caused to an object in space
belonging to another State. So, you cannot cause damage to someone
else's object without incurring liability. Yet leaving the objects in
situ, or forcing others to give them wide berth in order to avoid
liability, essentially results in perpetual occupation of the surface
upon which they rest. And perpetual occupation feels like appropriation
and a violation of the free access principal.
Interestingly, Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty does
contemplate the installation of facilities on the Moon and other
celestial bodies. Any such facilities shall be open to all, on the
basis of reciprocity and after appropriate consultation. It is not
difficult to anticipate that this provision may be easily abused.
4. Claim of Sovereignty Prohibited--But What if Not a Sovereign?
Should we treat private entities differently? The international
community seems largely to agree that no nation may make a claim to
extraterrestrial territory. Nevertheless, a colorable argument can be
made that this particular provision does not apply to non-State
entities. First, the Article plainly indicates that space shall not be
subject to national appropriation. Second, the primary restriction is
against appropriation by claiming sovereignty. Arguably, then, if a
non-State entity asserts proprietary rights, it is not a ``national
appropriation,'' nor is it ``by claim of sovereignty.'' This
interpretation is supported by the United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights, which, in Article 17 plainly states that ``[e]veryone has the
right to own property alone as well as in association with others.''
\9\ The Declaration applies to space activities through Article III of
the Outer Space Treaty which requires States to ``carry on activities
in . . . space in accordance with international law.'' Surely, this
would require States to support and defend fundamental human rights
even in a space environment. As such, arguably, it would be a violation
of international law to not permit ownership in space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, art. 17, https://www.un.org/
en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Stephen Gorove, the founder of our air and space law program at
the University of Mississippi put it back in 1968: ``an individual
acting on his [or her] own behalf or on behalf of another individual or
a private association or an international organization could lawfully
appropriate any part of outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies.'' \10\ Though this position has not been formally
advanced by any nation, the concept of sovereign versus non-sovereign
appropriation bears further consideration. While in the short term it
seems a dependable barrier to territorial claims by adversary
countries, it also may preclude the ability to protect or decline
access to sites that require protection whether due to the presence of
sensitive instruments or cultural artifacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Stephen Gorove, Interpreting Article II of the Outer Space
Treaty, 37 Fordham L. Rev. 349, 352 (1969).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Due Regard--A Definition TBD by the First Mover
Also layered on top of the non-appropriation principle of Article
II are the requirements, contained in Article IX of the Outer Space
Treaty that, among other things: 1) all activities in outer space be
conducted with ``due regard'' to the corresponding interests of other
States; and 2) if one country ``has reason to believe'' that its
activity will cause ``potentially harmful interference'' to another, it
must ``undertake appropriate international consultations.'' To be
clear, harmful interference is not prohibited--it must simply be
accompanied by a warning to the party which may be harmed. In short,
this provision has no teeth and can be considered little more than a
notice requirement.
Both the concept of due regard and the admonition to warn of
harmful interference suggest that States should not interfere with or
otherwise despoil the objects of another and clearly conflicts with
freedom of access enshrined in Article I of the Treaty and the ``by any
other means'' provision of Article II. Plainly, a balance must be
struck between access, appropriation and ``due regard.'' But ``due
regard'' is a standard that remains undefined. An international
arbitral tribunal considered the meaning of ``due regard'' in 2015 and
determined that ``due regard'' requires a balancing test, taking into
consideration the rights of the State that have been impinged by the
contested activity, the extent of the impairment, the nature and
importance of the contested activity, and the availability of
alternative approaches. This balance will produce different outcomes on
a case-by-case basis, an uncertainty which in and of itself is enough
to make States and their nationals consider carefully their
international obligations in respect of extraterrestrial mining
activities.
Thus, under the Outer Space Treaty, simply maintaining a presence
in one specific area of a celestial body, be it the Moon or an
asteroid, triggers the non-appropriation principle. However, the
concept of due regard suggests that if one entity is already occupying
and using a specific area, others must avoid interfering. This gives
and advantage to those who establish a presence first. And so the race
begins. Without a more specific construct of ``due regard,'' the entity
that gets to a desirable area first can easily make the argument that
``due regard'' requires other parties maintain a distance measured in
kilometers in order to assure the protection of their object or
objects. What's worse, these rules, could by default apply not just to
one particular celestial body, but can become the foundation for all
extraterrestrial resource management, wherever the source.
In 2011, NASA issued voluntary guidelines \11\ intended to protect
the instruments left at Apollo and certain US robotic landing sites.
These guidelines established exclusion zones that were set arbitrarily
by scientists and engineers who made assumptions about potential damage
from the lunar regolith ejecta which is known to be particularly
abrasive. In 2020, President Trump signed the One Small Step Act which
made these guidelines binding on any entity in a contractual
relationship with NASA. They do not bind any other countries or
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
617743main_nasa-usg_lunar_historic_ sites_reva-508.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Artemis Accords, which were developed in part to fill gaps in
international space law, also seek to establish guidelines to satisfy
the concept of due regard. In a section entitled ``Deconfliction of
Space Activities,'' the Accords require signatories to ``respect the
principle of due regard'' and ``refrain from any intentional actions
that may create harmful interference.'' The signatories to the Accords
further commit to ``provide notification of their activities and commit
to coordinating with any relevant actor to avoid harmful interference.
The area wherein this notification and coordination will be implemented
to avoid harmful interference is referred to as a `safety zone' . . .''
Finally, the Signatories agree to ``respect reasonable safety zones to
avoid harmful interference with operations under [the] Accords,
including by providing prior notification to and coordinating with each
other before conducting operations'' in the safety zone of another
Signatory.
This safety zone construct is essentially a proposal to bring
certitude to the balancing test of Article IX's due regard. However,
the language states that the signatories will ``respect reasonable
safety zones.'' The concept of reasonableness will necessarily be
determined by the party that was their first. As noted above, neither
China nor Russia has acceded to the Artemis Accords. In fact, they have
collaborated on their own lunar project, the International Lunar
Research Station (ILRS), which, as of December 8, 2023, has eight
countries formally involved. Unlike the Artemis Accords, the ILRS is
focused on scientific and engineering collaboration and thus do not, as
yet anyway, incorporate any policy or legal principles with respect to
appropriation or due regard. However, the Accords offer non-signatory
countries the opportunity to take advantage of the publicly distributed
language. Should China land on the lunar South Pole and claim a
``reasonable'' zone of a 20-kilometer diameter, how can Artemis
signatories complain?
IV. The Potential for the First Mover to Exploit ``Due Regard''
The Outer Space Treaty has no enforcement mechanism. Disputes are
intended to be settled through diplomatic channels. Barring that,
claims may be brought to the International Court of Justice. There is
no definition of ``due regard'' and thus the outcome of claims will be
uncertain. Indeed, the broad language of and gaps in current
international space law can be exploited to rationalize activities and
claims others would consider unreasonable or in violation of the law.
Moreover, international laws and norms are easily ignored and even
flouted without consequence on Earth. There is no reason to believe
that this will change when implementing activities beyond Earth.
Make no mistake. Right now, we are in race. Even if interested
parties were inclined to enter into negotiations to establish a treaty
on extraterrestrial resource management and utilization, treaties take
a long time to develop. In the meantime, legal norms will be
established by activity, and the first actors will establish those
norms.
Some have speculated that the Chinese government will withdraw from
the Outer Space Treaty when it established a permanent presence on the
Moon. But it does not need to. The Chinese government need only
interpret the Treaty, and particularly the concept of ``due regard'' in
a manner that will satisfy its strategic goals.
If a Chinese spacecraft lands, or even crashes, in a mineral-rich
area of the Moon or another celestial body, how will the Chinese
government interpret its rights and obligation? How will it define
``due regard?'' While the future actions of the Chinese government
cannot be predicted, we can learn from past statements about space and
acts taken on Earth and in Low Earth Orbit.
The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission
observed that ``China seeks to control access to the Moon
for strategic aims.''
The Chinese government's space policy has evolved subtly
but tellingly.
+ Its 2006 White Paper, states that ``China's government
holds that outer space is the commonwealth of all mankind, and
all countries in the world enjoy the equal right to freely
explore, develop, and utilize outer space and celestial
bodies.''
+ Its 2011 White Paper report leaves out language on space
as a commonwealth, reading instead that the ``Chinese
government believes that the free exploration, development and
use of outer space and its celestial bodies are equal rights
enjoyed by all countries in the world.''
+ It's 2016 White Paper replaces the phrase ``free
exploration'' with ``peaceful exploration'' though it does
maintain that all countries have ``equal rights'' to explore.''
+ It's 2021 White Paper opens with the statement that
China's ``eternal dream'' is to ``explore the vast cosmos,
develop the space industry and build China into a space
power.'' It acknowledges that ``peaceful exploration,
development and utilization of outer space are rights equally
enjoyed by all countries.''
China's Earth activities indicate a willingness to
disregard norms and act decisively even in the face of
international objection. For example, the Chinese
government has made sweeping territorial claims over
virtually the entire South China Sea, and appears willing
to defend these by force. It is not difficult to imagine
similar actions being taken with respect to an installation
on the Moon or another celestial bod, especially under the
cover of ``due regard.''.
China is not a responsible or transparent space actor.
+ While the majority of US spacecraft share information
regarding their planned maneuvers to a global database to
support space domain awareness and space traffic management,
the majority of Chinese spacecraft do not.
+ Chinese space objects routinely enter the atmosphere with
little guidance or control.
+ Chinese launches often cause damage in local environs.
In a worst-case scenario, a first mover like China can block access
to extraterrestrial resources under the legal cover of the Outer Space
Treaty--particularly the concept of due regard as it has been
conceptualized to support exclusion or safety zones.
V. Conclusions and Recommendations: Acknowledge Extraterrestrial
Resources
The space beyond Earth is a domain of human activity. A domain
filled with natural resources that can significantly improve life on
Earth. This Hearing is a first but significant small step. US policy as
a whole, and not just space policy, must acknowledge and embrace the
vast resources that the Universe offers. In addition:
The US should continue to encourage countries to accede to
the Artemis Accords and create as large a coalition as
possible.
The US should continue to adopt licensing and regulatory
actions that support transparency and responsibility.
The US should increase support for commercial space
activities that specifically include extraterrestrial
resource extraction and utilization activities.
The US should continue to actively participate in the
COPUOS and, in particular, its Working Group on the Legal
Aspects of Space Resource Activities.
The US should work with Artemis partners to enable the
research necessary to better define the concept of safety
zones and due regard.
As Walter Cronkite said: ``We are the lucky generation. We first
broke our earthly bonds and ventured into space. From our descendants--
perches on other planets or distant space cities, they will look back
at our achievement with wonder at our courage and audacity and with
appreciation at our accomplishments, which assured the future in which
they live.''
We have a responsibility to the future to get this right, and I am
confident we can.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Michelle L.D. Hanlon, Executive
Director, Center for Air and Space Law, University of Mississippi
and President and CEO, For All Moonkind
Questions Submitted by Representative Gosar
Question 1. How are space resources natural resources?
Answer. Encyclopedia Britannica defines a natural resource as ``any
biological, mineral, or aesthetic asset afforded by nature without
human intervention that can be used for some form of benefit, whether
material (economic) or immaterial.\1\ Merriam Webster states that
natural resources are ``industrial materials and capacities (such as
mineral deposits and waterpower) supplied by nature.'' \2\ And while,
as Britannica points out, what is considered a ``resource'' has varied
over time and from one society to another, natural resource laws and
policy categorize resources by their character and properties--and not
by where they are located. Aluminum, beryllium, tungsten, zinc and many
other critical minerals are natural resources wherever they occur, even
if they occur beyond areas of national jurisdiction, whether that area
is the high seas, or space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.britannica.com/science/natural-resource
\2\ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20resource
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural resources do not change their nature or their qualities
based on where they are found. As the natural resources on Earth are
depleted, as we know they will be over time, humanity must be open to
looking for other sources and this Committee is well-placed to lead
this paradigm adjustment.
Question 2. How can the House Committee on Natural Resources help
America secure the celestial mineral supply chain?
Answer. The US Geological Survey (USGS), the administration of
which is within the jurisdiction of this Committee, already implements
activities beyond national jurisdiction as it is tasked specifically
with researching seafloor mineral resources that occur in the high
seas, domains recognized under international law as not subject to
sovereign or territorial claim. This Committee can expand the
parameters of this research to all areas beyond national jurisdiction,
including outer space. As with research conducted on marine mineral
resources, findings by the USGS about mineral wealth in space should be
shared with stakeholders, including industry.
The fact that humans will deplete Earth supplies, even those found
in the high seas, is inevitable. For example, in 2022, the USGS
released a list of 50 critical minerals, natural resources, defined as
those that are essential to the economic and national security of a
nation but that have a supply-chain vulnerable to disruption.\3\ Demand
for these critical minerals is increasing, and one of the roles of the
USGS is to address the need for more up-to-date information on access
to critical mineral resources. The Committee could propose legislation
to expand USGS research to include the space domain in its effort to
define and prioritize focus areas with resource potential for these 50
critical minerals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/24/2022-
04027/2022-final-list-of-critical-minerals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some might argue that this is premature as we are many years
away from being able to successfully mine natural resources beyond
Earth, identifying mineral rich areas in space as soon as possible
offers many benefits, among others: first, it provides an incentive for
the development of space mining technology; second, it assures that
once the technology is ready, we will know where to go; third, it can
alleviate US dependence on foreign-sourced supply chains; fourth, as
our understanding of human reliance on the ocean eco-system increases,
we can avoid disrupting the marine environment with mining operations;
and finally, understanding what resources exist in beyond Earth and how
accessible those resources are can do much to alleviate present
tensions regarding resources. If it is established that these resources
are in great abundance, as we believe them to be, potential for
conflict will wane.
It is also important to point out that the Chinese government has
made very clear its intent to ``Exploit the Works of Nature'' through a
public roadmap that sees ``a comprehensive space resources system
spanning the solar system by the year 2100.'' \4\ This is a long game
and this Committee is well-poised to oversee US efforts in this regard.
Space resource utilization is the future and we jeopardize that future
with inaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/china-reveals-
grand-vision-for-space-resource-utilization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The space domain is an international domain and as this Committee
has jurisdiction over international fisheries agreements, the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea, and cooperative efforts to encourage,
enhance and improve international programs for the protection of the
environment and the conservation of natural resources, it is a perfect
starting point to open discussion of how international cooperation in
the management of the natural resources of space might be structured.
The Committee should hold hearings on how to manage natural resources
in the space domain under the framework of the international space
treaty regime.
Finally, given the Committees jurisdiction over relations of the
United States with Native American and Native American tribes, this
provides the perfect opportunity to assure that Indigenous communities
are included in the discussion of space resource utilization. The
Committee can work directly with Indigenous communities to assure
contribution from this group that is woefully under-represented in
space activities.
Questions Submitted by Representative Lamborn
Question 1. What are the opportunities and barriers to greater
coordination and investment in space resources research within
academia?
Answer. The United States has the finest academic institutions in
the world and has always been at the forefront of both space activities
and space governance. Three leaders come to mind. The Colorado School
of Mines offers the only space resource graduate program in the world.
The University of Mississippi has one of the oldest space law programs
in the world and is home to the only ABA-accredited law school to offer
a JD Concentration and an LL.M. in Air and Space Law. Finally, the
Thunderbird School of Global Management hosts the only executive master
of global management in space leadership program. Combining these three
superlative and unique academic centers provide boundless cross-
disciplinary opportunity at minimal cost to the taxpayer. Working
directly with USGS, these three institutions could help lay the
groundwork for a sustainable space governance framework that meets the
requirements of international law without ceding US leadership in the
space domain.
US leadership is vital because we have, at present, the most
representative government in the world. Every human, wherever located,
will be impacted by space resource activities. In the US we work hard
to give voice to all humans--albeit not always successfully.
Nevertheless, our system of governance provides more opportunity than
any other in the world. If we want to see an equitable and fair
management and distribution of space resources, we want to raise
awareness and encourage discussion of all space activities.
The only barrier to greater coordination is the lack of funding and
direction from the government.
Question 2. This committee especially understands the necessity of
specific but clear laws and regulations when it comes to mining. It is
important to walk that fine line of providing guidance and oversight to
the mining industry without stifling the growth. Besides the Artemis
Accords, which we see NASA is using to set the standard for extraction
of minerals such as these, what else should this body be working on to
protect the rights of private companies to extract and sell these
critical minerals?
Answer. Given this Committee's jurisdiction over aspects of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea and in particular the remit to
encourage, enhance and improve international programs for the
protection of the environment and the conservation of natural
resources, this Committee should take an active role in developing the
foundation for space resource management and utilization in keeping
with US treaty obligations. While arguments have been made that
anything space-related should be relegated to the House Committee on
Science Space and Technology, this gravely narrows our perception of
space and its importance in human society. It is this Committee that
manages natural resources, and its jurisdiction should not be narrowed
by where those natural resources might be located. Respectfully, this
Committee cannot properly oversee the management of natural resources
if it ignores such resources just because they occur beyond Earth and
beyond sovereign jurisdiction. There exists an opportunity to assure
that space activities truly benefit all humanity, and this Committee
should seize it.
______
Dr. Gosar. Thank you very much, Ms. Hanlon. I thank all the
witnesses for their testimony. I am now going to go to Members
on the dais for their questions. I recognize the gentleman from
Montana, Mr. Rosendale, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Stansbury, for holding this hearing today. It is a very
important subject. It underscores the urgent need to diminish
our dependence on foreign adversaries for crucial minerals.
These minerals are essential to America's success in the 21st
century, and we cannot rely on our enemies for them.
China is deeply invested in controlling the critical
mineral supply chain. The more we rely on them for these
resources, the more of a threat they pose to our sovereignty.
It is especially concerning that the CCP is exerting its
control on a global stage, increasing the possibility of a
future dominated by China. Currently, the United States relies
on China for 26 of the 50 critical minerals designated by the
Department of the Interior as a cause for concern. China not
only controls production, but also dominates the refining
process, and hardly anyone is talking about that.
The United States finds itself at a crossroads. We must
decide whether to reopen our mining and refining operations,
regaining control over our destiny with respect to these
critical minerals, or continue down a path of increased
dependence and economic entanglement with the CCP.
Unfortunately, the current Administration seeks to import
these minerals from countries that use child labor and produce
emissions. We could mine critical mines ethically and cleanly
now right here at home. But instead, we rely on third-world
countries in the name of environmentalism.
I am intrigued by extracting minerals in space, especially
as China races there. However, I want to ensure that this does
not replace extracting the critical minerals in our own
backyard.
One thing I have learned living in Montana, where
everything is freight in and freight out, transportation costs
are extremely expensive. Looking to space for minerals where
they may be plentiful is interesting, but it will present
incredible access challenges.
And to hear comments about how we have to make sure that
the environmental standards are met, or that the public
receives their funding back after they make the investments, I
have a real big problem with that. I am a skeptic, I will be
honest with you, because the nations that we compete with right
now do not follow the labor or environmental standards that are
in place with the international community as it exists, whether
it be by norms or mandates. Yet, somehow this panel believes
that they are going to follow those in outer space? You are
kidding yourselves. You are absolutely kidding yourselves.
Mr. Autry, you begin your testimony by quoting, ``Strategic
minerals and manufacturing have always created new real
wealth,'' and I agree with that, I absolutely do. America has
handed that source of wealth to other nations. We have
literally developed the technology and then handed it to them.
Space is a new frontier and offers a second chance to reverse
that error. Rather than focusing solely on space exploration,
why not consider a dual course of action that combines space
endeavors with domestic production in the United States?
How do you envision balancing the opportunities presented
by space exploration with the immediate advantages of more
cost-effective and less risk-intensive resource mining here at
home on our own soil?
Dr. Autry. Thank you, sir. Excellent question. I want to be
clear I don't know how you might have gotten the idea that the
entire panel supports some of the things that you rallied
against. I don't think that that is the case. And I also want
to be clear at no point would I have suggested that we do not
pursue an aggressive development of U.S. resources in an
attempt to rectify the mistakes we have made here on Earth with
our global supply chain. That needs to happen.
Back in 2010, I wrote a book called Death by China. And in
that book I addressed the issue of the Molycorp mine at
Mountain Pass, California, which back around 2000 produced 80
percent of the world's rare Earth elements. China shut that
mine down using aggressive dumping of products made with
abusive environmental behavior in Mongolia and Sichuan, and
then they jacked up rare Earth element prices, and then they
managed to get control of the output of that mine, which is all
shipped to China now. I tried to bring this to people's
attention, and do you know what I got? ``Do you realize we have
an economic crisis here in the United States, and we have this
problem and that problem? We don't have time to worry about
that right now.'' Well, this is where we are in space. We
need----
Mr. Rosendale. My time is just about up, Mr. Autry. What I
am trying to say is that if we can't get those minerals
produced here domestically when we have the technology, the
labor standards, the environmental standards, why would you
recommend that we take unlimited amount of public dollars to do
it in outer space?
Dr. Autry. I didn't say unlimited at all.
Mr. Rosendale. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Autry. I do believe investing in that technology will
benefit us here on Earth.
Mr. Rosendale. I yield my time, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Montana. The
gentlelady, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is always a new
experience on this Committee.
China and Russia are exploitatively mining in Africa, and
Russia is mining democracy and sovereignty in Ukraine, two
critical national security threats that Republicans continue to
slow walk when it comes to solutions, or even acknowledging
that there are issues.
A couple of years ago, the movie ``Don't Look Up'' came
out, and I can't help but bring it up now. The movie is about
two scientists who discover that an asteroid big enough to wipe
out all of life on planet Earth is headed towards us. The
scientists tried to convince the U.S. Government to divert the
asteroid, but they get sidelined when an eccentric billionaire
convinces the President we should mine the asteroid for
valuable minerals instead. A highly politicized asteroid denial
campaign ensues. But in the end, facts win.
While the movie was widely known to be a satirical take on
the threat of the climate crisis and the refusal of some to
take it seriously, it looks like my colleagues across the aisle
didn't get the joke. Nearly a year into Republican control of
the House, and this Committee has yet to have a single hearing
on the biggest threat of our time.
Just to remind everyone, 2023 will be the hottest year ever
recorded, and not by a small margin. Extreme weather events
like hurricanes in California, ice storms in Texas, and
wildfire smoke in DC are now the norm. Hundreds of thousands of
people are dying each year, local economies are being
destroyed, and frontline communities are getting hurt first and
worst. Yet, many of my Republican colleagues still refuse to
even talk about the climate crisis unless they can deny it. The
idea of passing any climate legislation this Congress is a
fantasy. In fact, every Republican who was here last year voted
against the single biggest investment in clean energy and
climate action in history, the Inflation Reduction Act.
Don't get me wrong. If space mining becomes a reality, we
must be absolutely clear-eyed about how it is managed. The
environmental, economic, and social issues are important and
challenging. So, I am glad our witness, Dr. Milazzo, is here to
document those issues into the Congressional Record. So, yes,
it is an important conversation to be had in the Committee that
can consider legislation about it.
Newsflash, that Committee is not this one. We repeatedly
asked Republicans for a clear jurisdictional justification for
it to be in this Committee and never got one.
Newsflash, today's hearing is not the most pressing issue
for the American people. It is just one more attempt to get us
to look away from their obvious inability to govern. They took
15 votes to pick a Speaker, voted him out, wasted 3 weeks to
find another one, and are now turning on him. They have
bafflingly turned one government shutdown threat into two.
Their government funding bills are being shelved by their own
party, and they are raining down investigations that generate
Fox News headlines, but no actual or factual evidence of
wrongdoing. With that kind of rap sheet, I can understand the
need for a flashy distraction. I guess my Republican colleagues
did learn something from ``Don't Look Up'' after all.
With that, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I was hoping we would see a lot more questions
to the panel instead of the pontificating that seems to come
out of the West Coast.
The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here.
NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey have been working
together to develop new technologies to detect and assess off-
world mineral resources. Universities like the Colorado School
of Mines, which hosts the nation's only space resources
program, is also researching how to detect, assess, and utilize
resources in space. These advanced technologies would likely
have applications for domestic industries, as well.
Dr. Milazzo, how is NASA and USGS working with other
Federal partners like the Department of Commerce and Department
of Energy to advance technologies that could support a new
generation of low-impact, critical mineral extraction and
production here on Earth?
Dr. Milazzo. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. I
am hesitant to speak for either NASA or the USGS. I was an
employee of the U.S. Geological Survey some years ago, but now
I am no longer a civil servant, so I hesitate to speak for them
about what efforts they are working on right now.
The reality is that we have a lot of spacefaring, Earth-
pointed satellites that are helping to better understand
resources and resource availability across the Earth. So, the
specifics of what the policies are and what the activities are
right now, I am not fully informed of. So, I want to be careful
I don't speak for either of those agencies at this time.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, fine. Besides the investments we will need
to make in technology, I know we will also need to be looking
to academia to make investments in future jobs in space mining.
In June, I co-led H.R. 4152, the Space Resources Institute Act,
with fellow Colorado Representative Caraveo. The bill directs
NASA and the Department of Commerce to report to Congress on
options for establishing an institute related to space
resources, and to provide the necessary leadership in basic
research, resource mapping, and technology development that
could dramatically reduce the cost of commercial space
missions, stimulate new industries, and maintain the United
States' leadership in space.
Dr. Autry, what Federal support is needed to encourage and
leverage private-sector investment and research into a more
robust U.S. strategy?
Dr. Autry. Thank you. I do want to acknowledge the Colorado
School of Mines' leadership on this topic, and my colleague,
George Sowers, there, in particular. They have done great work.
As I stated in my testimony, I think reasonable amounts of
R&D investment can help dual-use technologies that benefit
mining both here on Earth and in space in a reasonable way. And
it is not an excessive amount of money.
I also think that we can look at working with academia to
make sure that we address the issues that my colleague, Dr.
Milazzo, has while moving forward in a timely manner, as
Michelle Hanlon has mentioned, because if we don't we will be
ceding that field.
It is also super important to make sure that we recognize
some mechanism under which the mining operation sites and
processing sites on a celestial body can be transferable and
collateralizable so that debt investment, as well as venture
capital, can come into this field and run it like a normal
industry when it does emerge.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, very good. And I also sit on the Armed
Services Committee. We are concerned about what China is doing
to become more aggressive in the Pacific and, indeed, in the
entire world. So, Mr. Sundby, what are your biggest concerns
when it comes to the fact that China is also in this race to
secure the potential of rare metals from space resources?
Mr. Sundby. My primary concern is that the Chinese military
is there. The Chinese military essentially controls the
entirety of their space program. Their space program has very
little civil representation, essentially, and the People's
Liberation Army is placed in authority to oversee their
operations that will be conducted on the lunar surface.
So, when you see institutions such as the Lunar Research
Organization that they have established with Russia, that
institution will be staffed by military personnel. That is
legal under the Outer Space Treaty, but it is highly concerning
that that is the institution that will be overseeing all of
their research and resource utilization and exploration on the
surface of the moon.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. The
Chairman for the Full Committee is now recognized for his 5
minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today.
And I do want to take a minute and reassert that the
Committee does have jurisdiction on this issue. I know that has
been questioned, but I don't think there is any question that
our Committee does have jurisdiction on this issue.
And this is an issue that some people might ask why are we
doing this, this seems far-fetched. You could ask the question,
why not mine the Earth first, and then we will work on outer
space later? But also, if we look at the past, people would
have probably said the same thing about sending someone to the
moon and the space race that we were in back then. And we know
that there were some great discoveries and technological
advances that came out of those efforts.
When I was going over this hearing with staff, I was joking
and said, ``Have they found dilithium crystals,'' being a Star
Trek fan. And I know you haven't, but one question I want to
ask is what are the possibilities of new advances or finding
new materials and things that could be beneficial that we can't
even imagine today?
And if you are a Star Trek fan, you know that there were
things on there that seemed really far-fetched and sci-fi when
the show was made, but a lot of those are things that are
actually kind of in our world today with communications and
other things. But what opportunity do we have to advance our
scientific knowledge by proceeding with space exploration for
mining?
And I will start with Dr. Autry.
Dr. Autry. Thank you, sir. And I do have to underscore I
can't imagine why you are not allowed to discuss space
resources in the Natural Resources Committee. This baffles me.
I am also lost on the idea of why America can't, for once, have
long-term thinking. Because every single problem that we have
today, which we are so obsessed with solving today and is
distracting us from the future, is because we weren't looking
ahead of ourselves. We have been staring at our feet as we walk
forward.
There are unknown opportunities out there, sir, that we
don't know what they are. They won't be dilithium crystals, but
they may be just as amazing. When we entered the first space
race, nobody predicted GPS, the Internet, or that I would have
solar panels on my house, or that we would have fuel cells
backing up the operating rooms of hospital power supplies.
These things all came down because of the investment we made in
those technologies, and I don't know what we will discover.
There are some things that cannot be found on Earth that
are found in the moon. The isotope helium 3 is one of the ones
that has been discussed, and the head of the Chinese lunar
program is very excited about that. He says that the equivalent
of three space shuttle loads of helium 3 could power the entire
Earth for a year with clean, non-radioactive energy. That is
worth looking at. That material is very, very hard to find on
Earth. It is like 100 parts per billion in natural gas reserves
in the Earth, but it is fairly relatively abundant in the
moon's regolith.
Mr. Westerman. That leads into another question I had. I
have been to several mining operations, and it is amazing the
small amount of rare Earth elements that you find in a ton of
ore. I mean, you are talking about ounces or less. Are there
greater concentrations of these minerals and elements that you
find in space than we could find here on Earth?
Dr. Autry. Indeed, and one of the most important things to
realize, and that Michelle Hanlon touched on, is these are
concentrated. I mentioned the large mass concentration near the
south pole of the moon in the Aitken Basin. That may be 90
percent of the moon's mineral resources in that one spot. China
or Russia could go build their lunar base right there, and
there is a good reason to believe they will, and just exclude
us from that in no time flat. Even if we are not worried about
mining it for 50 years, we will have just signed off the future
because we didn't deal with it today. So, those resources are
likely to be concentrated, rather than evenly distributed. We
need to get out there, as I suggested, and increase NASA's
investment in the technologies and missions to identify where
these resources are.
Mr. Westerman. And, Ms. Hanlon, this idea of the global
commons of the resources that are in space, we know about the
tragedy of the commons here on Earth if we think we can't
exploit a resource enough and you get too many actors, and at
the end of the day you have exploited the resource. What is the
danger of having this view of the global commons, that it is
going to be there, we can wait, and we don't have to take any
action now?
Ms. Hanlon. Thank you sir. The global commons is indeed
ripe for tragedy. If nobody has a vested interest, then nobody
has an interest in protecting and being responsible with
respect to that commons.
Here on Earth, we have seen a lot of issues with people not
respecting the high seas. Unfortunately, that happens to be
also one of our biggest rivals, China. When we talk about
environmental concerns and being responsible, this is one of
the things we need to think about in this space race. If China
does get to create the base, and create a zone, and set up a
property area--and call it what it may, we are not allowed to
own property in space, but it is going to be treated like
property, because what is property? Property is the right to
exclude. And that is exactly what China is going to do. That is
what China does here on Earth. And we have no reason to believe
they won't do otherwise in space.
Fundamentally, the concept of global commons also suggests
that nobody can own it. And as we look at the vast universe
that awaits us, it is incredible, anthropocentric hubris to
suggest that all of the universe is somehow the responsibility
of earthlings, as if nobody else, nothing else out there
exists. We need to think about space very differently from the
way we think about things on Earth, because it is infinite.
Thank you.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing. I want to follow up off of what our
Chairman of the Full Committee said. As a matter of fact, it is
not only in our jurisdiction, but we have held field hearings
all across this country for the past 11 months dealing with
critical minerals and mining.
And I would like to point out one thing, Mr. Chairman. I
think it is rather obvious that, as well as in those field
hearings, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle weren't
even there for those, much less here for this one today. So,
when someone did pop in, it is no wonder she is a little
confused that we might have jurisdiction. It is the fact that
they don't participate.
If I ramble on a little bit more, please forgive me, but I
am going to tell you something. China is in a race with us, and
I am sure that the American people know that. And if they
don't, they need to know that. They have even stated that by
2045 or 2049 they want to be militarily, socially,
economically, and even in space be dominant over the world. And
we need to be cognizant of that, and we also need to be paying
attention to it, which is why I am so glad that we are looking
at things like what we are looking at today.
As a matter of fact, we have an Administration that wants
us to go EV on everything. Yet, Mr. Chairman, they refuse to
let us mine. I mean, we were in Minnesota earlier, and we were
talking about the largest deposit in the world of critical
minerals in a town up there that is drying up because they have
been trying to get permits for 20 years, but they can't do it.
Over 80 percent of the critical minerals that we do process
in this country are processed over in China by factories and
smelters that are nowhere near green or as green as they could
be. Yet, here we are, not allowing our own people. So, today I
want to continue to focus on China.
Professor Hanlon, you stated that legal norms in space will
be developed based on activity. Whoever is first to establish
space resource management and utilization will establish the
corresponding legal norms. Will the world benefit more from
space resources if CCP controls the celestial mineral supply
chain, or if the United States controls the celestial mineral
supply chain?
Ms. Hanlon. Thank you, sir. One of the greatest things
about this country is that we have the opportunity for every
person to speak, to talk, and to give their opinion. We have
hearings, we have notice of proposed rulemakings. Everybody has
the opportunity to contribute, whether they are an Indigenous
person, whether they are a male, female, cisgender. It doesn't
matter. You have a voice if you are American. In China, that is
not the truth, and that is not how the Chinese Government
works.
I believe that if the Chinese were to get there first, I
can't predict what they would do, but we can look at what they
do here on Earth. They suppress their own people. They make
claims to high seas as a sovereign territory. If we want to see
the equitable, responsible use of space resources, and see them
managed in an equitable manner, we need them to be led by a
country and countries that are part of the Artemis Accords, who
will support freedom and democracy and equity here on Earth and
in space.
Mr. Collins. So, it is safe to say that America should
focus on first obtaining a first mover advantage over space
mining so that it can control both the legal framework and
resource utilization policies that will most benefit our
country. Is that correct?
Ms. Hanlon. I would say that it could lead in the
development of the framework, yes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you. And if America lets the Chinese
Communist Party secure control over the celestial mineral
supply chain, then all other concerns are practically useless
because the CCP will just do what it wants.
Ms. Hanlon. Yes.
Mr. Collins. Regardless of any implications for others,
right?
Ms. Hanlon. Yes.
Mr. Collins. All right, thank you. Well, let's look at a
worst case scenario, then.
Dr. Autry and Professor Hanlon, real quick, I know I am
running out of time. What is the worst case scenario if China
wins the race for space mining? And how would that negatively
impact the United States?
Dr. Autry, do you want to start with that?
Dr. Autry. Yes, I don't want to be hyperbolic here, but if
China wins the race in space we have ceded the strategic high
ground militarily, and we have ceded the entire economic
future, and the United States will be relegated to a backwater
position for the rest of human history. I honestly think this
is an existential point.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Professor?
Ms. Hanlon. I agree with Dr. Autry. The Chinese will have
the opportunity to block our access not just to the moon, but
to all of space, and humanity's future lies in space. We have a
lot of problems here on Earth to deal with, but a lot of the
answers we will find in space, including, I believe,
ultimately, peace. Thank you.
Mr. Collins. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Crane, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
here.
I represent Arizona's 2nd Congressional District. We have a
good amount of mining that takes place in my district. For
those of you that don't know, Arizona is the largest mineral-
producing state in the nation. It provides about two-thirds of
our domestic copper. In May, the Biden administration stopped
the opening of Resolution Copper in my district. This mine
could provide 25 percent of the demand for copper here in the
United States of America. It is kind of problematic.
I want to start with some questions for you, Mr. Autry. Is
it a national security issue to buy critical minerals from our
enemies, in your opinion, sir?
Dr. Autry. Absolutely, sir. And as I noted, I have been
spending years talking about the rare Earth problem, and now
everybody has woken up to that. I think they are going to wake
up to the copper problem and the rest of these problems.
If we tie our own hands behind our back in the geopolitical
and economic competition of the future, we are going to have a
very hard time of it.
Mr. Crane. Is it also an economic issue, Dr. Autry?
Dr. Autry. Absolutely. As I noted, having access to a
reliable supply chain of factor inputs is critical, and China
has demonstrated that they will change the prices to suit their
needs to grab excessive monopoly rents once they have gained
control over the global supply chain, and they will also cut us
off or any other country off when they have the opportunity to
leverage us politically.
They, for instance, quietly stopped all rare Earth element
shipments to Japan several years ago in order to punish Japan
for arresting a shipping captain who had rammed one of their
coast guard ships. And they continue to behave that way.
Mr. Crane. Dr. Autry, what about outsourcing these jobs?
What happens to these mining communities when we shut down a
mine and then send that overseas?
Dr. Autry. We have in this country, unfortunately,
denigrated and not supported our productive industries and
manufacturing and resource extraction. It used to be that you
could go get a decent job to support a family right out of high
school in one of these industries.
Mr. Crane. Yes.
Dr. Autry. You can no longer do that. And we wonder why
kids run up $200,000 debts and they are fighting over jobs at
Starbucks. It is because of our lack of respect for these
industries and jobs.
Mr. Crane. OK, so we have already covered it is a national
security issue. It is an economic issue. Is it an environmental
issue, as well, Dr. Autry?
Dr. Autry. Yes, absolutely. As the other Member mentioned,
China doesn't do this well. In Mongolia, where they processed
rare Earth elements using an incredibly destructive acid
leaching process, the BBC did an article on it. They described
it as the worst place on Earth, this toxic lake of sludge and
mess that China is doing because China is willing to destroy
their environment and our global environment in order to gain
competitive advantage. The United States would do it right.
Mr. Crane. The BBC? That is no right-wing outlet, is it,
sir?
Dr. Autry. Yes, it is a crazy, conservative journal, I
think.
Mr. Crane. So, we have national security. It is an economic
issue. It is an environmental issue. Sir, why would we be doing
this?
Dr. Autry. Because the Chinese are putting a lot of
pressure quietly on a lot of people in our country to be
focused only on short-term things, to be fighting each other,
and to not be paying attention to the strategic issues of the
future.
Mr. Crane. Yes.
Dr. Autry. And we have seen that manifest here today.
Mr. Crane. They do put a lot of pressure on influential
people in this country, don't they, sir?
Are you familiar with what ``elite capture'' is, Dr. Autry?
Dr. Autry. Absolutely. In fact, I testified to the House
Foreign Affairs Oversight Committee back in 2013 on Chinese
perception management in the United States. I wish I could say
the situation had improved since then, but it has not. There
are a lot of people in industry politics that are at various
levels compromised by the Chinese Communist Party.
Mr. Crane. Yes, that is right, sir. Dr. Autry, does it
bother you at all, does it concern you at all that this
President and his son have taken money from the Chinese?
Dr. Autry. I am hoping, frankly, to keep space as a non-
partisan domain, which has been very successful. Certainly,
personally, I am concerned about that issue and any politicians
where we would find that they were being paid odd consulting
fees in tens of millions of dollars to do who knows what for a
foreign government.
Mr. Crane. Yes. Thank you, sir. I think we should all be
concerned about it, and not focus on some of the distractions
that were just brought in the room regarding we need to be
focused on climate change. You want to talk about distractions?
That was a complete distraction.
Thank you guys for coming. Thank you, Dr. Autry.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. The
gentlewoman from New Mexico, the Ranking Member, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With all due respect to the comments that were made at the
last round of questioning, if we are going to talk about
Members of Congress being compromised by elite interests from
other countries, how about we talk about members of this
Committee who take campaign donations from multi-national
mining companies that the Chinese Communist Party has an
interest in, including in Arizona?
So, this is an important issue. Mr. Milazzo, I am really
grateful that you are here to talk about the ethical issues
concerning the future of space mining. But it is hard,
listening to this conversation, to really get a sense of what
we are talking about here. So, can you please help us
understand? What kind of minerals are we talking about mining?
Dr. Milazzo. Thank you for the question. In space, in our
near-Earth space, whether it is the moon or asteroids, or even
the asteroid belt, or even all the way out to Mars, most of the
minerals that we can find here on Earth are going to be found
somewhere else in space, as well. Not all of them. Some of the
minerals that we find here on Earth require geologic processes
like hydrothermal systems to concentrate those minerals into a
valuable ore, something that we can----
Ms. Stansbury. But just specifically, what are we talking
about? Titanium? Platinum?
Dr. Milazzo. We can talk about platinum group metals, golds
and we can talk about cobalt, we can talk about most of the
strategic minerals that have been discussed are somewhere
available, for the most part, in space, as well as here on
Earth.
Ms. Stansbury. Got it. Yes, I was actually talking to a
colleague who is a scientist who works at NASA about this issue
over the weekend, and he was talking about asteroids that have
been found that are high concentrations of platinum that
themselves, these asteroids, are actually worth trillions of
dollars if they were to be captured, mined, processed, and sold
here on Earth.
But I think part of what gets lost in this conversation is
that we are talking about commodities that sell on
international markets, and the price of those commodities
actually, like all commodities, has to do with supply and
demand, right? So, if we were to flood the global markets with
supply and demand, it would impact all of these issues.
But I guess I am still struggling technologically and
feasibility-wise, like, how far out is this? Even if we were to
accelerate R&D in the United States and use international
partnerships, how soon would we be able to tap these resources?
Dr. Milazzo. I think that is a great question, and I think
it is a really difficult one to answer perfectly. We have
companies that think they can go mining next year or 2 years
from now or something like that. I think that is totally
unrealistic. I think we are looking at decades, at the best, to
actually return valuable amounts of materials to some kind of
use, whether that is use in space or back here on Earth.
Ms. Stansbury. So, we are talking decades out. And, for me,
I think part of what is hard, my background is in the sciences.
I have worked in natural resources management my entire career.
And the COP UN climate negotiations just wrapped up. And what
we know, what the science is telling us, is that Earth is
transforming so rapidly right now because of human emissions
and the changes to our atmosphere that if we don't take
immediate action, literally right now, in the next several
years, we are not going to have a planet to live on.
So, as we are talking about trying to compete with China
and get to these minerals first, and establish our claims, and
to hell with global commons and celestial commons, we have some
real issues here on planet Earth that we have to deal with
right now. So, I think part of what I really struggle with, and
I am all for R&D, I really, truly believe that we should be
investing in R&D in all opportunities, and I understand the
importance of competition. But my question is, can this mining
be done, which it sounds like is being proposed by private
companies, without Federal subsidization?
Dr. Milazzo. I think that is a great question, and I don't
believe so. I think eventually, maybe yes, but I don't believe
that there is a high-enough return on investment on the time
scales that most investors are looking for to realistically
bring profits back to those investors without some kind of
support from public funding.
Ms. Stansbury. Yes. I mean, I think that is where it comes
back to, we are talking about jurisdictional issues here.
Our role is to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. So, at
the end of the day, we have to ask questions like does it make
sense to spend billions of dollars in Federal taxpayer dollars,
which I think both of us across both sides of the aisle agree
we should not be wasting taxpayer dollars on pursuing things
that are not going to return a real value to the American
people, especially as we are facing immediate crises. Should we
be spending millions, billions of dollars to pursue R&D to
subsidize private companies who are going to go then and
capture those resources and use them for their own profits? And
I think that is, really, the ethical, the public policy
question in front of us.
And the more immediate question is how do we solve the
problems that we have on Earth and use the resources we do have
to do so in a smart way?
Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time, but I definitely
would like to have another round. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Sundby, your testimony discussed the private sector's
role of, going in right after the Ranking Member's, in space
resource development. How does the commercial space sector
provide America a competitive strategic advantage, particularly
as it relates to space mining?
Mr. Sundby. Yes, well it is central. This will not be done
by the government. And to address some of the concerns
regarding public funding, I do want to let everyone know that
most of the innovation in this country with a multitude of our
startups are funded by public grants, right? The problem with
that is that it has become entrenched, and venture capitalists
generally do not fund many companies that have not already
received public investment or public grants. So, that has
created a system that has been very reliant upon the
government.
That being said, I believe that the commercial space
sector, and particularly commercial companies that are focused
on dual-use technologies, and I want to emphasize dual-use that
will benefit the Earth mining industry, it will allow us to
better extract these minerals in a more environmentally
friendly way, and it will benefit our nation. If we can focus
on those dual-use technologies and these space companies can
utilize those, that will, obviously, give us a massive
strategic advantage both here on Earth and in space.
And to that point of dual use, I do want to say this:
mineral extraction, particularly lithium, is extremely
environmentally degradable. So, the process of creating
batteries and moving us towards electric vehicles is an
admirable one, I fully support it, but there are problems with
the extraction of this critical mineral here on Earth, and we
need to be looking at options as we move forward, because it is
still impacting our environment, moving from one form of energy
to another. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. So, in your opinion, it takes a lot of energy to
look at this aspect. Would that be fair to say?
Mr. Sundby. Yes, sir.
Dr. Gosar. Immense. That is why the helium aspect is so
important to the Chinese, is it not?
Mr. Sundby. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Dr. Gosar. Because this is demonstratable fission, if I am
not mistaken, right?
Mr. Sundby. It is nuclear fusion technology. It is
generally theoretical, but there are numerous amounts of
physicists that are very certain about its future, and we are
becoming much closer to achieving it. Then the access to helium
3 will, obviously, be a mineral race, one likely that we have
never seen before.
Dr. Gosar. Got you. So, the United States has a permanent
base on the moon, right? True or false?
Mr. Sundby. No, that is false. We do not----
Dr. Gosar. Well, how about China?
Mr. Sundby. China is preparing. They have outlined their--
--
Dr. Gosar. Dark side of the moon, right?
Mr. Sundby. What was that?
Dr. Gosar. The dark side of the moon.
Mr. Sundby. They have looked at strategic locations,
generally in the south polar region, which is where we believe
they will place their international lunar research station.
That is also the same region that we have looked at, due to
strategic access to water ice.
Dr. Gosar. Now, private sector, I think in the discovery, I
would love to get back to first to discover instead of first to
file. That would be so opportunistic for us to do.
But dentistry, I can tell you right now, has benefited from
space. The tiles for re-entry on the space capsule, those
changed the whole concept of ceramics. The density became much
greater, much stronger, and you could cut colors with it, which
is amazing. So, that was big, revolutionary.
The other aspect was memory wire, where you could actually
put a wire in a refrigerator, you plot the bands where teeth
are needing to move, and you put that band in there and see the
patient a year later, and the teeth are magically in place. So,
it is amazing what space has done, and we have always looked at
that from that standpoint.
Now, Ms. Hanlon, if China were to get the upper hand, would
we ever get a chance to get it back, from your viewpoint?
Ms. Hanlon. From my viewpoint, no, we would never have the
chance to get it back.
Dr. Gosar. Dr. Autry, I heard a lot about these laser-type
products. How close are we to those in space?
Dr. Autry. I am sorry, repeat that.
Dr. Gosar. These lasers, these military lasers, from your
understanding, how close are we to seeing this a reality?
Dr. Autry. The Chinese have already used laser weapons
against U.S. satellites from the ground, and they are certainly
entirely practical to use in space, as well.
Dr. Gosar. It could be a game changer, right?
Dr. Autry. Absolutely.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. We are going to do a second round. So, the
Chairman of the Full Committee is recognized for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Gosar. And, again, I
appreciate the witnesses taking some extra time.
This is an emerging field, new concepts, a lot of unknowns.
As I mentioned earlier, the common sense with what we know
today might say that it might not be a good investment, but
there is possibility that it could be a tremendous investment.
So, just to maybe inform the Committee more and to give you a
chance to talk about something you may not have gotten asked, I
wanted to start down on this end, and is there some question
you wish you would have been asked today that you haven't been
asked, or something you would like to leave the Committee with?
Mr. Sundby. Yes. I would have liked to be asked what is the
role of the space force in all of this, and that is a question
that I think many people do have. They are curious about this
new service that we have.
As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Chinese have
created a space force. They didn't call it a space force. It is
called the Strategic Support Force. But they are paying
attention to this matter. They are investing in this matter.
They care about this matter. And as much as we have made
advancements in this, we do shy away from discussing the
difficult topic of our humanity from different nations going
into space and being in that environment, and having to protect
our assets from a security perspective.
So, my answer to that would simply be that we need to look
at the space force and think of it more so how our Navy secures
the high seas and allows for our shipping lanes and our conduct
of industry and commerce in the ocean the same way that we will
in space. So, we need to look at the space force from that
perspective. We need to give it the ability to conduct that
operation and understand that that will be under its purview as
we go forward and further into space.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
Dr. Autry?
Dr. Autry. Sure. The topic I would love to address is the
use of public funds in helping us capture this industry before
our competitors do. I am fearful that some on the Committee
would not have funded the Lewis and Clark Expedition because it
was a distraction from whatever problems were going on in the
East Coast at the time and cost too much money.
I have heard the phrase ``unlimited money'' and ``billions
of dollars'' tossed around. I want to be clear. We are talking
about millions of dollars in research budget at the university
level to help develop, again, dual-use technologies that will
benefit us here on Earth and in space at the same time. And
that should be one of the criteria that is applied to it.
If you give money to NASA to help them do additional
research on space resources on the moon and on asteroids, they
have done remarkable things for, again, millions or hundreds of
millions of dollars. We are not talking about billions of
dollars in the programs in any way.
And one of the great things about space is that the
entrepreneurial revolution that has been going on is making
space cheaper. The cost of access to space, space launch, and
the cost of satellites has been dropping year, after year,
after year, because we are commoditizing and commercializing
something that used to be a government-run, bespoke program.
So, this is not going to be expensive, and it is going to
return benefits back to Earth.
When somebody decided to do GPS, they were thinking about
how can we help American troops or put smart bombs through a
window. And nobody thought that it would create Uber, and that
it would create Pokemon Go, and that it would be in everybody's
pocket, and everybody's car, and every boat.
Mr. Westerman. And along those lines, quickly, I have seen
various numbers on the return on public investment in R&D. Do
you have an off-the-cuff number?
Dr. Autry. Sure, yes, I will give you my favorite number.
Motorola did a study a dozen years ago on the value of GPS to
trucking fleets in the United States, and they determined that
a truck is $52,000 per year more efficient if it is GPS-
equipped, fuel, tires, driver time, et cetera. We have a
million of those trucks in the United States. That is $52
billion a year the United States gets back from its investment
in just one space technology that happens to be about the same
as the entire U.S. expenditure on space every year.
Mr. Westerman. Exactly. And it is amazing to me that we
would argue that investing in R&D is a bad investment.
Mr. Milazzo?
Dr. Milazzo. Yes, thank you for the question. I appreciate
the opportunity to speak.
One thing that kind of makes me sad here is that we
actually have the opportunity to reach across the aisle and
agree on quite a number of things that we are talking about
here. We have talked about dual use, we have talked about
ethics. We have talked about a lot of things that we seem to
agree on, on both sides of this aisle here, and yet there is
still a lot of acrimony.
We can do lots of good for the environment while we are
building up our capacity to mine in space. It is not going to
happen tomorrow. It is on our doorstep, sort of, but it is not
science fiction anymore. But at the same time, we are talking
about dual-use technologies and approaches to making space
mining accessible. You cannot do that without doing it here on
the Earth.
So, we have to approach this in a collaborative manner,
rather than an acrimonious manner. My fear is that we are going
to lose the ability to do both, improve our mining here on
Earth, improve our environmental protections here on Earth, and
lose our ability to do space mining simply because we are
fighting and we can't come to some real agreements that we
actually agree on across all of the different political
spectrums.
So, it makes me a little bit sad that we are having this
fight when we don't really need to have it. We could come to a
really good set of bipartisan agreements here, tri-partisan,
multi-partisan, whatever, and really build a functioning
standard for both mining in space and improving our mining here
on Earth. Thank you.
Mr. Westerman. I am out of time. I don't know if you want
to allow Ms. Hanlon to answer that or not.
Dr. Gosar. The gentlelady from New Mexico is recognized
for----
Ms. Stansbury. Aren't you going to let her answer?
Dr. Gosar. You can let her answer.
Mr. Westerman. All right, Ms. Hanlon.
Ms. Hanlon. Thank you very much for the extra time.
I would like to address the concept of why we are
discussing space mining now, when we don't think we are going
to see a return or even a piece of metal within 60, 80 years.
The fact of the matter is that the technology that we are
developing to mine other worlds can be used to benefit humanity
here on Earth already. These technologies can be used to help
us get into mines with robots instead of little children. The
mining for water in particular may help us find water here on
Earth in pockets where we have the driest areas. Extracting and
using off-Earth resources is going to make it easier and more
efficient for us to explore more of the universe and maybe find
those dilithium crystals.
So, we have to think about this not just about what the end
goal is, but all of the things that we achieve on the way. And
as we have seen, NASA puts out a magazine every year of all of
the technologies that we have benefited from because they were
either developed for space or they were spin-off technologies
of stuff that was developed for space.
The opportunities that are presented by space mining
technology are truly boundless. Thank you.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman from the Full Committee.
The gentlelady from New Mexico, the Ranking Member, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Stansbury. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want
to dig in just a moment about the budget, and R&D, and spin-off
technologies.
I am a huge proponent of Federal R&D to help support
economic growth and opportunity. I think part of why you are
seeing some partisan back-and-forth on this Committee is that
this is a hearing that actually should be in the Science and
Space Committee, which is actually a bipartisan committee that
works a lot on these issues of space technology. So, it is very
unusual to have a hearing on this topic where we deal with
public lands and waters. So, there is a real, I think,
jurisdictional question, though I do respect the Chairman for
his perspective on this. But I think that is part of the issue.
I used to work at OMB. I used to do the Earth science for
the budget for the Department of the Interior. That means I did
USGS' budget and I worked on satellite budgets. And the Federal
Government spends billions of dollars every year subsidizing
commercial space exploration and technologies. It is billions.
And space mining research and technology done at universities
through NSF grants is a very small subsection of Federal R&D
monies.
And certainly, there are lots of spin-offs that come from
Federal R&D. And I am glad the Chairman mentioned the heat
resistant tiles because my grandfather, John Stansbury, who was
an engineer, actually worked for the plastics company that
perfected those tiles. So, we have a medal from John F. Kennedy
that is still in my family from that era.
But there are legitimate questions here, public policy
questions about where we spend our money in the near term and
the long term, and also how we approach this question of the
commons, and where we prioritize our funding, and whether or
not it makes sense to try to out-compete China by unilaterally
spending billions of dollars to help subsidize a private
industry that is 60 to 80 years out in the future, rather than
using international cooperation to try to pursue this.
And I think this goes to the bigger questions that the
United States has engaged in since the onset of the Cold War
and the arms race, and the militarization and commercialization
of space. And space is a commons. There are different treaties,
of course, that govern it. But certainly, when we started
sending satellites up into space we just thought it was a vast
unknown space where we could just put whatever technology up
there. And now we have literally thousands of space junk
objects in space that are a hazard to both our military
establishment, as well as the private sector, because we did
not regulate those commons. So, now it is a huge and massive
problem for all of us.
But I also think it is important to acknowledge that we are
not going to out-China China. I mean, first of all, China is a
state-run economy. Almost every enterprise in China has some
tie to the Communist Party, right? It is a state-run economy.
China is also an authoritarian, non-democratic place at this
particular moment. Part of why they have been successful in
undertaking aggressive economic activity on every single
continent and now in space is because it is not a free place
right now.
And the United States is a democracy. And we do have free
enterprise here. And while I do support using Federal dollars
to help support R&D, and exploration, and pursue ideas that are
important to the future, we are not going to out-compete China
on this particular issue in this particular moment.
But what we do know is that we have to solve our problems
here on Earth. And I think that part of why we are seeing, as I
said, contentious conversation here in this Committee is
because this Committee's jurisdiction is really about solving
problems on Earth, not in space.
So, I appreciate all of your comments, and I yield back.
Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentlewoman. If we are going to pay
our fair share and we talk about benefits, we ought to be
bringing up the OPT program, the Optional Practical Training
program. Here is where the biggest of businesses get the
biggest bang for the buck. They don't put their money into the
Social Security and Medicare fund, but they are treated like
everybody else. So, if we are going to go down that line, we
better take care of that.
Ms. Hanlon, can you elaborate basically on Article II of
the 1967 Outer Space Treaty? The question I have is can you
elaborate on how any country or private party can establish a
resource extraction operation if territory cannot be claimed on
a celestial body?
Ms. Hanlon. Yes, absolutely. Article II says that no
territory in space may be claimed by any nation by sovereignty
or by any other means. Therefore, while we do have a structure
where we have this freedom of access and use of space, we are
not permitted to actually plant a flag and say, ``This is
mine.''
Again, the concept of property is an exclusion one. We
don't want people to come in, and not necessarily for malicious
reasons, but because, for example, on the moon, the lunar
regolith is very, very destructive. And if somebody drives too
close to another operative machinery or one of our heritage
sites, we will see a lot of damage done to that machinery.
The interesting thing, the conflict within the treaty is
that Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty actually anticipates
that countries will have habitats and installations on other
celestial bodies. And it states in Article XII that you must
give access to other nations to your installation on the basis
of reciprocity. So, what we have in the Outer Space Treaty,
what we have in international space law right now is a lot of
conflict within the treaty itself about what it means. What
actually does it mean when you build an installation on the
moon? What actually can you do? Can you exclude other people or
not?
Dr. Gosar. What makes it enforceable?
Ms. Hanlon. There are no enforcement provisions under the
Outer Space Treaty whatsoever. At this point right now, if
there is an argument, a claim made, we must go through
``diplomatic channels,'' and those are arbitral. And then,
after that, you can go to the International Court of Justice to
an arbitral panel. Again, these things will take years to get
through.
And the concepts, there is no bright line rule. We are
using this concept of due regard, which is a balancing test,
which means that even as you look at these issues, as we look
for private investors in space, we can't tell them that you can
protect your property in space because we don't know what due
regard means.
Dr. Gosar. So, without an investment, Dr. Autry, right now,
what stops China from eliminating us from even being a player
in this space?
Dr. Autry. Repeat that.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. With some of the questions I asked you
about the laser technology, what would stop us if we don't get
involved now in space from China eliminating us even being part
of the process?
Dr. Autry. What we need to do is move quickly. We need to
move with alacrity and, again, to address this issue of money.
I never said anything about billions of dollars. If billions of
dollars are being spent somewhere else, that is great. I am
talking about a reasonable amount of money for the NASA science
budgets, for the Department of Energy and NASA science work,
and a reasonable amount of money for academic institutions to
help solve problems here on Earth that will also be applicable
in space. We need to do those things. We need to do them now,
or we could be blocked from access to space, as Michelle said.
And I completely agree with Dr. Milazzo that we could have
a very non-partisan agreement here among the panelists. The
concerns he has are real concerns, and need to be addressed
simultaneously to us moving forward with alacrity because we
are in a race we didn't necessarily choose to be in with a
competitor who has proven to be a cheat here on Earth, and they
are going to do that in space. And if we don't move now, we are
going to hand that field to them.
Dr. Gosar. So, we are talking about dual use at Resolution
Copper. My colleague from Arizona brought up Resolution Copper.
Here is a company that spent $2 billion just cleaning up a mine
site, making sure they have all the water they need and all of
that aspect. And here they were going to use robotics at 7,000
feet and below to mine this copper. This was going to be
utilized for the future of technological mining on asteroids.
That would be a dual use, right?
Dr. Autry. Absolutely, along with autonomous AI robots, as
Michelle mentioned, to get the kids out of the cobalt mines in
Africa, and power systems that Dr. Milazzo referred to that
will have real benefits here on Earth.
Dr. Gosar. So, I am going to get in another question. What
is our dollar backed by?
Dr. Autry. Delusion.
Dr. Gosar. There you go. But if we actually had a good
supply of rare Earths, this could be a backing for our holding,
monetary funding. That is how expensive and how important these
are. We have even set up a consortium with Canada to try to get
enough of these around.
Last but not least, I am aware of some different smelting
processes that are now being pursued or actually pushed
forward. Smaller, but they get everything out of the ore. Are
you familiar with any of these?
Dr. Autry. It is not my area of expertise, but yes, I am
familiar with advanced smelting processes. We have seen a
revolution here in the United States going to electric smelting
for steel, for instance, at Nucor Steel, and space technology
presents the opportunity for us to explore unique smelting and
processing applications.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I just have to tell you, when I was a
dentist, the ability to use ceramics on just a disease part was
amazing. Amazing. I could put something in, and the color
coding, I would say find it, and it is just amazing what is
coming around with this technology. And you had firsthand
knowledge of it.
With that being said, I thank all the witnesses for your
valuable testimony and the Members for their questions.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the
Committee must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5
p.m. on December 15. The hearing record will be held open for
10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, I adjourn this meeting.
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Gosar
Statement for the Record
AstroForge, Inc.
INTRODUCTION:
AstroForge is a commercial deep space mining company focused on
extracting critical minerals from asteroids. Our mission is to
autonomously mine Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs) for precious and rare-
earth metals with the intent of aiming to reduce the United States'
dependence on foreign critical mineral supply chains. Our first
mission, a prototype of our in-space refinery, launched in April 2023
and is currently in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Our second mission, which
will target, track, and image a Metallic asteroid approximately 30
million miles away, will launch in Spring of 2024.
Currently, the United States relies on geopolitical adversaries for
these materials, sourced through traditional mining and refining
methods.\1\ Critical minerals like Platinum, Iridium, and Cobalt, are
fundamental raw materials that modern technologies rely on \2\--they
are abundant on asteroids \3\--but without steady access to supply and
transparent pricing here on Earth, our technological progress and
industrial base will be severely and irreparably weakened.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See e.g., Critical mineral resources of the United States--
Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1802 (Klaus J. Schulz, John
H. DeYoung, Jr., Robert R. Seal II & Dwight C. Bradley eds., 2017),
http://doi.org/10.3133/pp1802; Sara Schonhardt & E&E News, U.S. Looks
to Mongolia, Wedged between China and Russia, for Critical Minerals,
Sci. Amer. (Jul. 31, 2023), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
u-s-looks-to-mongolia-wedged-between-china-and-russia-for-critical-
minerals/.
\2\ Notice of Final Determination on 2023 DOE Critical Materials
List, 6450-01-P, U.S. Dep't Energy (July 28, 2023), https://
www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/preprint-frn-2023-critical-
materials-list.pdf; Press Release, U.S. Geological Survey Releases 2022
List of Critical Minerals, U.S. Geological Survey (February 22, 2022),
https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/us-geological-survey-
releases-2022-list-critical-minerals.
\3\ Kevin M. Cannon, Matt Gialich & Jose Acain, Precious and
structural metals on asteroids, 225 Planetary & Space Sci. (Jan. 2023),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063322001945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS ASTEROID MINING POSSIBLE?
Short answer: Based on recent missions, advances in deep space
exploration and technology, and coupled with the United States'
trademark ingenuity, we think it will be very possible--not in 60
years, but before the end of this decade.
The skepticism around asteroid-related missions is understandable,
given the complexity and novelty of space exploration. However, there
have been several successful government-led missions to asteroids that
highlight our growing capabilities in space technology and exploration.
The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) executed two
successful missions, Hayabusa \4\ and Hayabusa2,\5\ which both
collected samples from asteroids. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) executed three successful missions, NEAR
Shoemaker,\6\ DART,\7\ and OSIRIS-REx,\8\ which accomplished a range of
asteroid related objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., Hayabusa, https://
science.nasa.gov/mission/hayabusa/ (last accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
\5\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., Hayabusa2, https://
science.nasa.gov/mission/hayabusa-2/ (last accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
\6\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., NEAR Shoemaker, https://
science.nasa.gov/mission/near-shoemaker/ (last accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
\7\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., Double Asteroid Redirection
Test (DART), https://science.nasa.gov/mission/dart/ (last accessed Dec.
26, 2023).
\8\ Nat. Aeronautics & Space Admin., OSIRIS-REx, https://
science.nasa.gov/mission/osiris-rex/ (last accessed Dec. 26, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government-led missions to explore asteroids have been a huge
success. However, past commercial ventures to mine asteroids have
failed for two big reasons:
1. Launch costs were too high. 10+ years ago, launch costs were as
much as 13,000% more expensive. This dramatic reduction in
costs, coupled with a more robust space economy, allows
AstroForge to use its resources on focused innovations.
2. Focus on inefficient off-asteroid mining and refining. Past
commercial asteroid mining endeavors revolved around
hauling large chunks of asteroids closer to Earth to refine
them, which is simply not energy efficient or cost
effective. Our proprietary approach to mining and refining
asteroids in-situ is better.
There is still significant work to be done to scale these endeavors
to match the capacity of mining critical minerals that would
substantially benefit the United States. The path forward is getting
clearer and can be strengthened with government support. We continue to
innovate each day to make this a reality.
OUR APPROACH TO ASTEROID MINING
Boiling it down, AstroForge's innovative approach to mining in deep
space involves three fundamental moments:
1. Targeting Metallic Near-Earth Asteroids: AstroForge aims to dock
with these asteroids, which are primarily composed of iron,
using electromagnets.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure #1--Round Trip Mission
2. In-Situ Mining and Refining: AstroForge plans to mine and refine
precious and rare-earth metals directly on the asteroid.
This process includes laser ablation, mass separation using
mass spectrometry, and magnetic collection of the refined
metals.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure #2--Prototype forge, currently in low
earth orbit.
3. Return to Earth: After extracting approximately a metric ton of
precious and rare-earth metals, which are currently valued
between $70M to $100M, the mission will return to Earth.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure #3--Launch vehicle test for second
mission in 2024
Our ideal mission profile, illustrated in Figure #1, is
approximately two years. In the ideal end-state of our technology, we
will have many autonomous missions occurring simultaneously to maximize
success and the volume of collection.
WHY SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE ACT NOW?
The House Committee on Natural Resources is uniquely positioned to
support this innovation since space resources are natural resources. In
the not-so-distant future, innovations in space mining will also
trickle down into terrestrial mining, creating a dual-use innovation
loop that the United States has successfully created in the past and
led to ground-breaking technologies like GPS, memory foam, and LEDs.
Nearly all modern technology relies on precious and rare-earth
metals. To keep pace with consumer demand, technological innovation,
and a dwindling terrestrial supply, the United States needs to develop
better ways to consistently access these critical resources. America's
boundless innovation is its super power, however the raw materials to
fuel that innovation could be a severe bottleneck to the future of
computer chips, green technology, and energy independence. The
Department of Energy has listed multiple precious and rare-earth
minerals as ``critical'' on the path toward the United States' 2050
climate change goals.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See U.S. Dep't Energy, What Are Critical Materials and Critical
Minerals?, https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materials-and-
critical-minerals#::text=Critical%20
materials%20for%20energy%3A%20aluminum,silicon%2C%20silicon%20carbide%20
and%20 terbium (last accessed Dec. 27, 2023).
Our imperative to innovate is made even more clear by geopolitical
pressures to our critical mineral supply chain. Right now, China and
Russia control or influence the mining and refining process of many of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the critical minerals on which American industry relies.
AMERICA NEEDS TO BE THE FIRST
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is trying to mine asteroids
\10\--we need to do it first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See e.g., Tim Marshall, China's Bid to Win the New Space Race,
WIRED (Apr. 12, 2023), https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-space-
race.
If asteroid mining is possible, the United States needs to have
that first-mover advantage. The United States is already reliant on
China for many critical minerals and we cannot risk ceding another
major supply chain for these massively important raw materials.
In the off-chance that asteroid mining for critical minerals is not
economically feasible, learning more about deep space and building
commercial deep space capabilities still has enormous value. The United
States cannot miss this opportunity for downstream innovations, instead
we should reap their benefits.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS
Below are six recommendations to Congress that could rapidly
advance deep space mining innovation for commercial companies in the
United States.
1. Develop a strategy to support a broader commercial deep space
economy that allows commercial companies in the United
States to lead and innovate.
2. Provide funding for research and development for deep space
mining, specifically for the critical minerals that the
United States has deemed critical to industry and defense.
3. Allocate additional funding to NASA's Space Technology Mission
Directorate (STMD), NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts
(NIAC) Program, and NASA and JPL's Small Bodies Group, for
the continued exploration of near-earth asteroids.
4. Clearly direct the United States Space Force to support and
protect critical mineral supply chains in deep space.
5. Direct the Department of Energy to prioritize deep space mineral
acquisition within their critical minerals innovation
programs.
6. Urge the Department of Commerce to allocate CHIPS funding towards
deep space mineral acquisition to bolster raw material
availability for chip manufacturing.
CONCLUSION
AstroForge is ready to engage with the committee to further discuss
its plans and the broader implications for U.S. leadership in space. We
believe our mission aligns closely with national interests in
technology, defense, and economic independence.
[all]