 All right, so the name of this panel is the Artemis Accords and the Moon Agreement, Living in Harmony. If you look at the stage, you see four space lawyers total and one scientist, but the panel will not be deep and involved with international space law, although we are going to allude to it. So Living in Harmony on the Moon and comparing the Moon Agreement and Artemis Accords with me first to my immediate left is Dr. Antonino Salmeri, the director of the Lunar Policy Platform and the co-chair of the Space Generation Advisory Council. Antonino, thank you for joining me. To his left is Emily Pierce, who is the attorney advisor for Oceans, International, Environmental, and Scientific Affairs, Office of the Legal Advisor Department at State. Often you will see her at Copas. Emily, thank you for joining me today. To her left is Gustavo Medina Tango, who is the scientist, who is from the autonomous University of Mexico. And we'll point out later, but I think it's worth noting here, is that he is also in that ISAC, the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, serving as a science expert. And really, we can ask him questions, particular to scientific opportunities on the Moon. And thank you for joining us this afternoon. To his left is my Gold Chief Growth Officer at Redwire. Amongst, if you look at his biography, a wide variety of other places that he's been at, whether it's NASA, or Maxar, or even before that was Bigelow. So Mike, thank you also for joining us. It's great to have a look at around at this panel and seeing old friends and new friends. So first, I want to turn to Antonino, Dr. Salmeri. I want you to talk about, we've heard about the scientific opportunities on the Moon and commercial opportunities on the Moon. But you can talk about that, but in the context of the precedent-setting value that it has and the fact that we're going to go and do these things, what great importance are they? And then, a little bit about the governance framework. So the floor is yours. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. And thanks for having me at this panel. It's such a pleasure coming back to the Summit on Sustainability at Securewall Foundation with a very easy question to answer, guys, about precedent-setting on the Moon and then what is the governance framework for governing this precedent. I will start by saying that we're going to have this 106 or more payloads that were mentioned in the panel before coming to the Moon, not just in the next decade, but if all goes well in the next three years, by 2026, with a number of international countries joining. Among the precedents that we need to look at are the first commercial landing on the lunar surface and ice-space got really close to that. But next year, there's going to be other attempts from them. But this year already, there might be attempts from intuitive machines that will try to be that company. Then we're going to have the first commercial recovery of space resources contracted by NASA. We're going to have then additional activities with the development of commercial telecommunications satellites on the Moon to ensure that we have a constellation, as, again, intuitive machines calls it. And then later on, we might have the first persistent infrastructure with the development and deployment of power systems, landing pads, and so on and so forth. In addition to that, if everything goes well, we will talk about very positive precedents. But if we don't coordinate enough in advance, we might also have the first accident on the Moon. We might have the first case of harmful interference. And later on, we may have the first conflict and so on for their additional geopolitical complications on the Moon. So how do we make sure that we establish the right type of precedents on the Moon? It's a question that we need to answer today. We have this unique window of opportunity in which we know that certain activities will happen on the Moon. We have an understanding of how they will be. And we can be deliberate about what kind of precedents we want to set on the Moon. And I think the question becomes, who gets to decide that? Who gets to establish these precedents? And how do we make sure that we line them up in the right way, making sure that they build on each other and they are consistent with international space law? And to this end, there is already some activities going on at the international level in the committee on the peace for users about space. We have a working group on space resources that was kicked off two years ago and this year started to discuss the organization of an international conference that will take place next year. And the goal of the working group on space resources is to develop in five years principles, an initial set of principles for ensuring that safe, sustainable, peaceful, and rational conduct of space resource activities. And I think that working group is an excellent opportunity to start think about not just space resources themselves, but something also related to that, because space resources will not just happen magically on the Moon. We will not teleport mining instruments. We will need to lend them. We will need to ensure that there is communication, that they are powered, that everything we mine is stored and eventually processed and transported back. All these activities are connected to space resources and they have to be considered holistically as part of a broader framework that we need to keep in mind. KOPOS will play a central role into that, but as we all know, there are also programs that are already planning to go to the Moon and the Artemis Accords are an example of how do you try to implement the principles of the outer space treaty, which we know will apply to the Moon because they are meant to govern every space activity. But the question is how and what kind of implications they have. Just give you one example. The outer space treaty is a treaty on principle. So in itself, it doesn't give you specific guidance on how to conduct activities. So we have the freedom to use and explore celestial bodies, but we also have the prohibition of appropriating them. We have the freedom, actually the free access to all areas of celestial bodies, but we also have the right to establish stations and installations. And we know that all of that will have to be conducted with due regard to the corresponding interest of others. So how do we take these principles, balance them against each other, and then apply them to create concrete rules on how much you can stay, how long you can stay on the Moon, how much resources you can take, and so on and so forth. So the Artemis Accords are a regional, or I would say we call it sometimes in international law, minilateral approach to solving these questions by a group of countries that are doing activities together and they want to make sure that they are guided by the same principles. Then on top of that, it will be the discussion in copus, but I think I want to emphasize the importance of below that level, below state to state interaction in the Artemis Accords or in copus, the importance of developing Norse behavior and understanding what is the role that commercial actors and civil society will play in developing these norms because not everything can be decided at the international level, not should it be. So we need to think about why we have principles in the Artemis Accords on the Confliction and while there will be discussions among states on how to ensure this deconfliction, what an operator will do on the Moon if it has an issue of overlapping activities with another operator perhaps from another country and how these two will be able to communicate with each other to solve these problems and how do we ensure that their activities are predictable. I think those are the questions we need to answer and that's why we need synergies, not just at the multilateral but also at the multi-stakeholder level. And I'll close by saying one final thing which is the importance of being deliberate. I think this is something that at the Lunar Policy Platform and broader at the Open Lunar Foundation we value significantly. We have a responsibility also towards future generation and in my capacity also as co-chair of SGC and particularly mindful of that because we have a blank page on the Moon, literally a blank page. And so whether we want to draw a beautiful picture in it or we just wanna have different shades of color that are uncoordinated, that is the question that it's in front of us and so we can take steps and make sure that we get the picture and I think so far we have the opportunity and the resources to do it. Now it's just a question of how far are we willing to go to make sure that happens. I like it fair enough. And you're alluding to this idea, the sentiment, this notion that there may be conflict, normative conflict, rule-based conflict between outer space treaty, moon agreement, outer space treaty or let's say moon agreement, Artemis Accords. I wouldn't say that there will be normative conflicts but they could be diverging interpretations because these principles are generally enough so that they can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. And if there is no boundary as to how far you can push your interpretation of the outer space treaty, then it is very likely that different countries, different interpreters will come up with different interpretation, different solutions. And if you then operationalize them, you may have conflict at the end but I don't think it's an inevitable result. I think eventually groups like the space resources working group or even Artemis are meant so that states can find those boundaries to then maneuver inside and have their own interpretation of the outer space treaty. So we don't have to agree on everything but we need to understand where do we draw the line at the broader general level and then we need processes for solving potential disputes that may come later. So again boundaries and then we interpret within the boundaries and if we disagree on something we know how to handle that disagreement. I think those are the two things we're missing now and we must develop in the next five years. Oh great, okay, great, thank you. So I asked that question about Moon Agreement Outer Space Treaty. In the Hoover app, you can vote. I put a poll up there. I'm gonna close the poll. The poll will be closed around 3.30 asking your, you know, I wanna get the opinions of the audience whether there actually is real kind of conflict between Artemis Accords and Moon Agreement or whether it's, you think differently. So please go on the app and fill in that. Next I wanna turn to Emily. First I wanna talk and a very pointed question. What values would the US like to see develop on the Moon and then a follow up after that? But please go ahead. Yeah, sure. I think it should come as no surprise to folks in the room that the values the United States wants to see develop on the Moon but also throughout all of outer space are the values that are reflected in the Artemis Accords. And, you know, the Artemis Accords developed because the United States and several international partners had near term plans to engage in lunar exploration and there was an urgent practical need as Antonino alluded to, to start to get countries on the same page regarding operational implementation of several key obligations of the outer space treaty. And that's why our initial conversations were focused on among those partners. And the first signatories to the Accords all have two common traits. They're already contributing to the Artemis program or have expressed an explicit desire to participate. And two, they share a vision for safe, transparent, peaceful, and prosperous future in space for all humanity to enjoy. But now we have about 25 signatories which I think is maybe less than one country shy of being about a fourth of all copious members. And they reflect a diversity of states, states that are space-faring, space that are emerging space-faring states, and states that as a Rwandan representative stated at a side event in copious last week said that they would like to place themselves on the value chain for access to outer space. So states that want a seat at the table to help develop what the rules are going to be. So those values reflected in the Artemis Accords, in my view, are three. First, the beneficial and sustainable use of outer space for all humankind. Second, the promotion of operational safety and the reduction of uncertainty. And third, even though you said we weren't gonna talk a lot about international law, as an international lawyer, I can't go without saying the third value is the promotion of international law and multilateralism. So first, the Accords principles promote sustainable and beneficial use of outer space for all humankind. When I speak with people, friends, family, co-workers, other members of copious about the promise of outer space, there's a general sense that countries and humans around the world benefit enormously from the applications and the scientific discoveries of the use of outer space, including space-based services, telecommunication services, GPS, you all know the list goes on. And many people, except for maybe the scientists in the room, many people cannot even fathom what's going to come next, but they know that they don't wanna be left out. So there's also a general sense that whatever we're doing in outer space, scientific discovery, use of outer space needs to be done in a way, a sustainable way so that humanity at a future time, a future when all of us in this room are no longer here, humanity can still continue to benefit. So the Accords principles promote the value of sustainable and beneficial uses of outer space, so if signatories affirm that they will give due consideration to the 2019 LTS guidelines, the signatories are committed to planning for the mitigation of orbital debris. They recognize that interoperability and common exploration infrastructure and systems are important. They reduce resource intensive redundancies. The Accords recognize that space resource use can provide support for sustainable operations. If we can manufacture fuel from water on the moon, we can reduce the need for costly transportation of these resources from Earth. And importantly, signatories are committed to the open sharing of scientific data, helping to ensure that we're bringing the scientific benefits of our civil lunar exploration to others on Earth. Second, the Accords promote increased safety of operations and reduction of uncertainty. I don't need to tell people in this room that space operations are dangerous and risks can be difficult to assess and sometimes even difficult to predict. And in several places, the Accords reflect the signatories believe that information sharing is a linchpin, whether it's through the LPP or discussions among Artemis Accord signatories or at Copious, information sharing is a linchpin to dealing with that reality. And third, the Accords promote respect for international law and multilateralism. The Accords are at their core based in our international obligations under the Outer Space Treaty and other applicable international instruments. They take important steps forward by providing a framework to help us implement those obligations on the moon, to provide guidance to help us navigate how to ensure free access on celestial bodies and free exploration and use of outer space while also meeting our obligations related to due regard, harmful interference, non-appropriation. So, and there are many instances in the Accords where signatories recognize the importance of multilateral forums like Copious where at least the three of us just were for a couple of weeks and commit to engaging in multilateral efforts to further outer space governments. There are the Outer Space Treaty and Copious are referenced at least 13 times in the six pages and it's the preamble we're preserving human heritage, space resources, the space resources working group in the legal subcommittee is a key part of that and deconfliction. The Accords are an attempt to create some basic starting points among the 25 signatories and others who we hope will join us and then we can inform our positions at Copious to foster that broader dialogue in the multilateral forums. Great, thank you so much. You know, let me return to something you just said that if I heard this right, the Accords reference the Outer Space Treaty numerous times, is that what you were saying? 13 times. 13 times in the Outer Space Treaty. Okay, so as a follow-up question, when you think about things and opportunities that we would like to do on the moon, projects, missions we'd like to do on the moon, some of them are overwhelmingly scientific in nature. Some of them may be commercial in nature. And as was alluded to in that last panel, there's national prestige value in performing firsts and accomplishing firsts on the moon, not necessarily commercial or scientific. How can we order and prioritize them? And is there something that, you know, the Artemis Accords or the US approach will set a precedent or primacy for one of those activities or do you think that they can be balanced? Well, as we're looking towards a post-ISS reality, commercial actors, I think the approach we're taking is that commercial actors can provide services to, from in Outer Space, that maybe the United States government may not be best placed to provide any longer. And the commercial provision of these services allows the United States government to focus its resources, its financial resources, its human resources on its scientific exploration missions, including those missions, as Holly shared with us earlier, are importantly built on international cooperation with our international partners. And through this approach, we don't have to necessarily choose, we can prioritize scientific opportunity while also promoting industry growth. And under the Accords, the United States and other signatories have to flow our Accords commitments down to our contractors and other parties that are acting on our behalf. So we're able to disseminate those best practices and principles among the actors that are working for the Artemis program. So we can help to broaden the applicability of the Accords principles, but also broaden the actors that are adhering to them. So, but this is just the beginning and not all activity on the moon is going to be civil exploration with government contracting. So more complex questions are rapidly coming down the pipeline and we need to keep the multi-stakeholder dialogue open. Exactly. So you're saying there isn't just strict categories. That's a purely commercial activity. That's a purely scientific activity, but they're intermixed. Correct. Excellent. Thank you for that. Thank you, Gustavo. I want to hear what near-term governance and coordination issues are seen as crucial for Mexico as an emerging lunar actor. Look, I would stay where she mentioned about the difficulties for the general public and that's all over the world to understand the problems in the moon and what will be done in the moon. I think most million four people around the world can understand if they have a cell phone or they watch Netflix, that space debris around the earth is a problem. But it's not so easy to convey to a larger public what is the problem of having debris around the moon. Even worse, to convey what is the problem of having debris on the surface of the moon or to have radio noise or seismic noise in the moon in these pristine environments, even if they are covered with dust, they are pristine from the scientific point of view, or also the problem of mechanical activity that will make dust levitate larger distances and for long times on the moon. And there will be a great problem for all these things that can be done there. So, but this has to be convey somehow and this is everywhere in the world, I will come back to that because the moon is a very special place and not only as a hub to go into Mars and the rest of the inner system and the asteroids that will come later for sure in decades to come. But immediately there from the scientific point of view, the moon is a very special place. Yeah. Think that the moon for example doesn't have an atmosphere. If it doesn't have an atmosphere, you can have huge telescopes without interference of the atmosphere. You don't have an ionosphere, therefore you can put large radio telescopes or arrays of radio telescope anywhere in the surface of the moon to study cosmology, to study the darkest ages of the universe which we cannot do from the ground. You have radio silence regions on the far side of the moon where you can for example study the 21 centimeter line of hydrogen where you can see the first stars and be a complement to the Jane Webb Space Telescope that cannot be done otherwise. But you also have another precious things. You have cryogenic for free. You can go to a bottom of a crater and have 30 kelvin for free and darkness. So you can do experiments with centeroferometers, with photon counters, et cetera. You also have vacuum for free, a better vacuum than the LHC but you have there for free in huge volumes. This means that you can do really interesting science, science that it would be extremely expensive or that you really cannot do in other places or for example also you don't have tights in the moon because there are no oceans obviously. Therefore you can observe certain frequencies of oscillation that you cannot observe neither in the earth nor with orbital observatories for example for gravitational waves. And you can do them at the bottom of craters where you have already cryogenic and vacuum and everything. These are unique opportunities. So this has to be protected. But I would say not protected in the sense of living the moon as a playground for science. That's impossible, it's impractical. Even because the kind of science that we'll have is large science. Large science means large infrastructure over large areas with very complex instrumentation that you cannot transport completely from earth. So you will have to build on site. And if you have to build on site, you need in situ research utilization. This means you will need industry and commercial ventures even to produce science. And of course you will need it to produce the starships that will go to the inner solar system. So what you have to find is some equilibrium between all these factors because all these activities have to go on and are relevant. But science can also be a very interesting factor and we have already examples of that today in the world. For example, the particle physics experiments which are international in nature because they go to $15,000 million euros or things like that. So you have to have international collaborations. To have these international collaborations for doing sciences have a lot of benefits. First, you can produce with these huge international collaborations a tissue of communication that goes beyond borders, not beyond borders of countries, beyond borders of geopolitical blocks because science is really global. And then you can have a bottleneck process. Instead of going to UN and UNOS and then come back and try to talk with the government, you can talk among scientists. And scientists have access to the government. Astrologers did that for a long time, millennia. So that's a way really I think to do this communication. And also it can solve another problem. A very important problem is that you really need consensus but global consensus is not just US, the European Union and Canada. It has to be the world. And science allows you to lower the threshold of entrance to space activity so that emerging countries can go and do science. They already do in different large particle physics projects. The same can be done in space. And then you will achieve a lot of your objectives naturally. Of course it's not the solution for everything but certainly it's a base to do a sustainable development of the moon to allow for international cooperation beyond your political problems because you will have them. If you have to do in situ research utilization, there are resources that are limited. Pick up water that you have said to use to do fuel. Water is a limited resource on the moon. It is extremely expensive. You can put the price. If I want to put one liter of water on the moon, it costs $1.5 million today. So it's an expensive resource. You have water there. Probably at the bottom of craters in the South Pole you may have three billion tons of water. It looks like a large number. But it's a lake. And it's a lake forever on the moon. And it's just that lake. So it's unavoidable that you will have artemism on one side pumping water and you will have probably other blocks, geopolitical blocks, trying to pump water from the same hole at the same time. And interfering among each other. So you will have problems that can be done by legislation but also perhaps can be resolved by dialogue around science and international cooperation at that level. Excellent. Sounds like you're pretty optimistic though. I mean I think it's so important to continue to stress and clarify to folks that the moon is a place, is a laboratory, is a location where it's only some of the most pristine places to do science or the only places to do science or the best places to do science including like learning about the history of the universe and stuff like that. That's so critical to continue to stress to people. So we see that it is a scientific laboratory in addition to all those other opportunities that we have. Thank you for that. We'll return to you in a bit. I wanna turn to Mike. Mike, first I'm gonna ask you a very pointed question because we have you on camera. This is being recorded. And it is, were the Artemis Accords intended to contradict or undermine the moon agreement? And the moon agreement's idea that outer space, including the moon, is somehow the common heritage or property of all humankind. To answer that, please, for those in the audience who don't know, give your history with the Artemis Accords. Briefly though, I mean. So, the briefly is the problem. Before I get to the Artemis Accords, I think we may have lost Holly, but I just wanna say where we talk a lot about the Artemis Accords and you know, I like talking about the Artemis Accords as the only topic that would get this third generation Red Sox fan to a city that hosts the New York Yankees. But we don't talk nearly enough candidly about the gateway agreements, the binding agreements that established the gateway. We should not take for granted that that happened or that these things occur. We were fortunate to stand on the shoulders of giants who negotiated the ISS when we established gateway agreements, but those gateway agreements were not easy to occur, is where most of my gray hair comes from. And the fact that we got Japan, Canada, the countries of ESA, it's all signed off on what is the cornerstone of global cooperation that then enables the international aspects of the Artemis Accords is extremely important. And I just wanna thank all those countries that participated, the officials that were there that allowed us to get there with gateway because we do not talk enough about the importance of that. And I will say too, the technology is being developed for gateway that at Redwire we're building the rollout solar rays for the gateway that you saw on the charts and we just did the rollout solar rays. The fifth wing was just deployed on the international space station. So it's terrific to see that technology manifest that will then take the moon. Relative to where the Accords came from, as you may have heard me say before, when it comes to beyond low earth orbit human spaceflight, failure at NASA wasn't just an option, it was a certainty in my entire lifetime, not a single beyond Leo human spaceflight program had ever been able to sustain itself to fruition. As you can see, I'm not that young. So there were a couple of things missing. One was bipartisanship. Obviously you need strong bipartisan buy-in to achieve sustainability for any program in the United States. And kudos to my former boss, Jim Bridenstine, and then many others who came afterwards in the current administration, Pam Melroy, Senator Nelson, Bahavia Law. Jim said, I will work on that bipartisanship. And Jim, who was a Republican, spent more time talking to Democrats than he did to Republicans to get that bipartisan support. The second aspect was for it to be truly international, that if you contrast what occurs in Leo with the International Space Station, that has been the foundation of global human spaceflight, with what was occurring beyond Leo, there was a stark chasm of difference. And Jim and others said, part of the reason for that is the first word, international. So in order for the Artemis program to sustain itself, it had to be international by nature to be able to continue. And it was the right thing to do in terms of globally, that one of the beauties of space, I like it as a Star Trek band, is it forces humanity to come together as one. They're on Republicans, space, Democrats, even Americans, et cetera. We come together as humans to take on the incredible challenge of space. That's where the accords came from. And kudos again to many people in the room, our friends in Luxembourg, our friends at the UK Space Agency, Mexico, everyone who contributed to make this dream of the accords reality. Relative to the Moon Agreement, I'm so grateful to Secure World Foundation for giving us this forum to answer this question. Explicitly and strongly, the answer is of course they can live in harmony. That we explicitly crafted the accords to ensure that nations that were signatories to the Moon Agreement could also sign the accords. The accords were about finding common ground, bringing countries together. And if we leaned into issues that were diverged, it would have defeated the very purpose and nature of what we were trying to accomplish with the accords. So this was explicitly considered. The language of the accords was designed to avoid the conflict. And that's why it's so frustrating to me when I read articles about how can Australia, for example, which was a founding member of the accords, sign both. The reason that they can sign both is that the accords were designed to create the Big Tent. They were designed to bring everyone together. Now that's a great strength of the accords. It is also a weakness to the extent that there are issues that the accords have yet to resolve and won't resolve relative to what do you do with the resources once they've been collected? Should there be an international sharing regime? Because of a divergence in the international community on those issues, the accords did not come to a conclusion on that topic. And therefore we've left plenty of work to do, unfortunately, for Emily and Antonio and the legal subcommittee at COPEWIS to figure those issues out. The accords are a beginning of a conversation, not an ending. And I very much appreciate the articulate description of the accords that both Antonio and Emily have given that they are to implement the Outer Space Treaty, that you can't take the Outer Space Treaty, give it to NASA HEO and say, do this. You have to go a level below. Again, the safety zones are actually a wonderful example of that. The Outer Space Treaty says, avoid harmful interference. Well, how are you going to do that? Transparency, say where you are, tell the United Nations where you are, be public what you're doing, and then communicate with other countries that will enter zones so you can avoid harmful interference per the treaty. I will say that the accords go a step further, well, in a couple of ways, such as the full free and open release of scientific information, which is very important. It is also an example of something that you wouldn't levy necessarily on the private sector. So there are differences there. But I think one of the other exciting aspects of the accords is for the first time, there's an actual repercussion to violating the Outer Space Treaty. I love the Outer Space Treaty, over 50, 60 years old. Doesn't look a day over 35, right? Like it's an extraordinary treaty. It was an extraordinary thing. It's the spine of international space law, but one of the flaws is no repercussions to violations, no repercussions to pulling out. For the first time, the accords say that there will be a repercussion, that you cannot participate in the Artemis program if you are going to violate the Outer Space Treaty. I'm very proud that we put some teeth for the first time into the treaty. And I'll just conclude this question with referencing something that Antonio said, conflict, because I think he laid out a path where if we are not intentional, if we are not proactive in establishing these norms of behavior, conflict is the inevitable result. And the accords at their heart are, were and are an attempt to avoid conflict before it occurs. And the accords aren't the only solution. Other countries may have other ways to implement the Outer Space Treaty, but it's important that we all try and strive and move forward. And while the journey of Artemis is to the moon and Mars, if we follow the accords and norms of behavior, the destination will be peace and prosperity. Thank you, Mike. Thank you for that. I want to shift gears a little bit and still ask you a question about regulation of the commercial sector on the moon. And is there a way to balance some of those issues that we just heard about, about balancing commercial interests versus scientific interests, national prestige interests? How should the commercial sector, the lunar commercial sector be governed and regulated? Well, first, we actually need a regime to do so. And everyone take a sip of coffee because I'm about to talk about Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty, everyone's favorite article of the Outer Space Treaty, which if you've lived a life good enough where you're not familiar with Article 6, Article 6 requires the authorization and continuing supervision of private sector activities by their governments. And currently in the United States, we don't have explicit authority for an agency to have responsibility for implementing oversight over many commercial activities. We're still meeting our Article 6 obligations, but it's being done on a largely ad hoc basis by FAA or by commerce or even by FCC in some instances. And what we need to create this balance is a system. And that system should be transparent. That system should look at a balance, not be tipped too far one way or the other because the where of false dichotomies. I hear far too often, is it government or is it private sector? Is it science or is it human spaceflight? The answer is always all of the above. We're always stronger when we're coming together. So we need a regime that acknowledges that. We need a regime unlike export control where you are innocent until proven guilty. We need one that can move forward with alacrity, at the speed of commercials so that you have hard deadlines if the government doesn't respond. We need to know why the decisions are made. So again, a transparent process that includes by the way classified information if the company has personnel that can be viewed classified information. And then finally, self-certification that private sector companies are really the experts in terms of what's occurring. We do this in export control that the company should be saying what they're going to do. That needs to be reviewed, approved by the government. And if there's a change to that, then the company will get back to the government, let them know. That's how supervision should be implemented in a fashion that will allow for robust commercial growth, robust international growth, not something that will deter nations from operating in America or elsewhere because we're not alone when it comes to development. We want to see the free world develop. We want to see not only our astronauts and our machines, but our values of freedom, diversity, quality go to space. And that's why I hope that if we lean into this and we can get Article 6 figured out, we can have a future that is far more Star Trek and far less Star Wars. I'd like to thank you so much. So one way to compare Moon Agreement and Artemis Accords, Moon Agreement negotiated at Copas. It's an international agreement. Artemis Accords led by a state and a set of states largely outside of Copas. Is that a problem that's gonna be, is that a real problem with the fact that people could object to it just on the procedural grounds? And I'm gonna go to Emily first, but certainly the other folks will be invited. No, I don't think that they can object to it on procedural grounds. I think that there was a real practical need for states that were, have near term plans to go to the Moon to work together to figure out how they were gonna implement their obligations under the Outer Space Treaty. There isn't a lot of, while some of these activities aren't going to be taking place for a few years, there wasn't really a lot of, there isn't really a lot of time to figure out those operational aspects. And so there was an urgent need to work together with those partners. There was a, and I feel a little bit bad that you don't have to take my word for it. There are many other signatories, of the original aid signatories who I think would tell you the same thing, but I encourage everybody to reach out to them that there was a real negotiation over the text. And there are going to be opportunities to bring our experiences and what we've learned from implementing the accords to the multilateral discussions. As Antonino said, we have to be deliberate. These are step-by-step processes to international lawmaking. And as a lawyer who doesn't have a scientific background, I think that Gustavo probably doesn't want me drafting law for what's going on in the Moon when we don't yet know how those activities are scientifically going to work. There haven't been any scientific use cases that have been demonstrated. We need to see how these things are working, learn from those initial activities, and we need to feed that information into the rulemaking and lawmaking process. Lawyers, and I don't like being categorical, but I think most good lawyers would not want to draft rules for space resources utilization, for example, in a vacuum. I just wanna add, why nobody questions the fact that the IGA for the ISS was negotiated outside COCOS? Why is that not a problem? And the Artemis, of course, are a problem. The reality is that both documents in the Gateway Agreement that Mike mentioned before, they govern specific programs among like-minded countries. So it makes sense that they develop their rules for their own program in their own framework. They don't have to be necessarily negotiated in COCOS. The goal of the Moon Agreement was totally different than the goal of the Artemis Accords, or of the ISS-AGA, or of the Gateway Agreement. That's why they are negotiated in two different places through different methodologies. Okay, so you're seeing activity happen at a variety of different fora, and there's work at COCOS on space resources, and yet there's also like Artemis agreements done outside of COCOS, any comment on that, and where is it best to take these discussions? It's a tough question. I think the best way is to approach this in a multi-level, multi-layer fashion. So each body has its own competence and responsibility. So COCOS, obviously, is the leading body for international space law, which essentially means the interpretation and implementation of the outer space treaty, and that has processes that last a very long time. We talk about 10 years to negotiate the long-term sustainability guidelines. It will take five years for the principles of the space resources working group, and perhaps other five to then try and expand them into becoming a framework. And so COCOS has that role of discussing the high-level questions that relate directly to the international space law, and then we need layers below that will discuss what do we do in the meantime? Countries come to a consensus. Last week we were in Vienna, and we saw countries failing to have consensus on a title for discussing dark and white skies. After two years of negotiations and two full days of discussion, that didn't work. So we have to be prepared for the fact that COCOS may not even agree on these things, but we still need to push the activities forward in a way that it's peaceful and cooperative. So that's why Artemis accords, and perhaps the ILRS, you know, let's not forget China is working on an international lunar research station. They want partners to come, and they have already acknowledged the need to have rules for that. They already have it in their Guide for Partnership. They will develop something similar to the Artemis Accords, and so those will be the levels for countries to come together and make sure that their program work. And then, like I said below, we need a place for civil society discussions and companies discussion, also in harmony with all this, with what is done at the above levels. And I often get the question, what if China developed something similar to the Artemis Accords? My answer is that's what success looks like. You ask the question, you know, should we have done the Artemis Accords differently or done it at Copa was any country that is conducting activities on the moon or plants conducting activities on the moon that either isn't part of the Accord's discussion or isn't talking about how they're going to implement their obligations to the Outer Space Treaty are remiss and will ultimately undermine the Outer Space Treaty. That the Accords are the operationalization of the Outer Space Treaty. It must be done if we're going to avoid that conflict and succeed with being on the moon. And I just really appreciate what Anita said because no one asked why did you do the IGA not through Copa was, why didn't you do the gateway agreements through Copa was? Where we go depends on what you want to achieve. So if we're looking to achieve a global consensus on space resources, Copa was absolutely the appropriate forum to do that. If we're looking to ensure that as we move forward on the Artemis program that we do so in a fashion that upholds the Outer Space Treaty, the Registration Convention, the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts and other vital values such as full free and open scientific information honoring heritage. Well, you have to operationalize that via the program that you're working on. Never forget the first word Artemis chords is Artemis. So I think that's a false criticism when it comes to Accords that stems from a misunderstanding of what the Accords are. And if you read the Accords and please do, they're a page turner and it's relatively, it's wonderfully written. I love how it ends. And it's relatively short. And as Emily has mentioned, 13 references to Copa was, I appreciate. Outer Space Treaty. Exactly, Outer Space Treaty, sorry. And I just want to mention what again, emphasize what Emily said that good regulations come from good experience. We should not try and overly regulate when we don't know what's going to be required. And that's what the Accords say that they reference time and time again. Let's take the experiences from trying to implement the Outer Space Treaty and then take those experiences to Copa. Have the conversation there. And ours won't be alone. China can come forward with their own. And then let's have a global conversation about what we can all do together. Excellent, thank you. So everyone seems to want to talk about space resources and divide up and see how we're gonna govern space resources. But Gustavo, everything that you were talking about before, are there more pressing urgent issues besides dividing up and settling, getting the regime for space resources? It seems as though there's a lot of other issues that we need to think about. I think there is a pressing issue. And I come back to your first question. What is important for Mexico and emerging country? And it is the fact that I think we all recognize, at least intellectually, that there has to be dialogue and international dialogue and cooperation. Nevertheless, this morning, there was a poll here in which people, which are here, 59 persons voted, which is a large percentage of all this group of people that think that international cooperation and participation is important. Well, they voted that, I couldn't vote, but they voted that the countries that should have a say are those who have satellites. There was not a single vote for those who have not. You know, I am an Argentinian. I lived and worked in Brazil. I am now based in Mexico. This reminds me of mistakes that as a civilization, we have produced a hundred years ago and of which with whose consequences we are still living today as poverty, as military conflicts, et cetera, yes? So we can do better. Actually, Lieutenant General Shaw said also this morning that we have a chance to do things better now. And this is important because we are not building now for this generation because whenever we put a little bit of trash in the moon, there is no biosphere to the graded. There is no plate tectonics to put it under the moon. It will be there until either we collect it or we regulate it or until micrometeorize in the next billion years, destroy it and make it dust. So we have to think of this future. And I remind you that I know for what I know of history, there is no geopolitical situation that have survived more than a thousand years. And even then the examples are very few. So things change. So those who don't have satellites today will have them tomorrow. And they will have to live with the consequences of whatever we are doing and the decisions we are making today. And there I come to something that is important for Mexico, for example. It is the fact that we can use regional institutions like regional space agencies also to open the doors to dialogue, to include emerging countries. An example of that, for example, the Latin American and Caribbean space agency that is being strongly promoted by Mexico that has already 21 signatories and has passed already by almost 11 Congresses. So it's at the point of starting operation. So that's an example. Probably the African space agency will also be an example of places which can open the door to countries that perhaps today don't have the knowledge to sit at the table, but have intelligence and have a view of the future and the future they want for them and their children. And they can create this space of discussion to bring everybody at the table. Because for me, success is not when we have a lot of different kinds of accords in different geopolitical blocks, is when we have everybody somehow talking together and arriving to consensus, especially to something so important because there are other places that are equivalent to the moon, really in the solar system, but too far away, yeah? Douglas Adams already said how large is the universe. So keep that in mind. The moon is nearby, it's special. And really it's not an environment that is self-prepared to restitute itself as it's our biosphere. So that would be the note I'd like to say. Thank you. Just want to say that Gustavo is not a lawyer, but he described what you regard under Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty should mean in practice. Being mindful of the fact that space-faring nations are not the only nations and that whatever we're gonna do on the moon we have to keep in mind the corresponding interest of others and the moon agreement would add the interest of future generations. And so I think having that type of approach to inclusive governance, to inclusive discussions and to a forward-thinking holistic approach is what we need to have in practice for implementing what is a legal obligation on the Article 9 of the Outer Space Treaty. Excellent, thank you for that. I see that our time is almost up. If there's any further last-minute burning comments that you have to get across, especially if it's about what I was trying to get about lunar priorities, lunar governance priorities, if any hot pursuits or thoughts on that. I guess I would say two things if I can remember them. I think that in terms of lunar priorities, science, as my colleague really eloquently suggested to me yesterday, science and commercial activities are not mutually exclusive. Lunar science is interested in resource mapping on the moon and commercial payloads that are expanding the opportunities for scientific research on the moon. So we have scientific activity that accelerates our commercial industry and vice versa. So I think that they're not mutually exclusive. In terms of the priorities for lunar governance, I really think, at least from my perspective, we need to take it step by step and the first step is learning from the scientists, the industry, other stakeholders about what the activities are that are being planned so that as a lawyer, we can inform ourselves and inform the conversation about how to develop the initial set of recommended principles and other governance instruments. So let's learn from the scientists and science and commerce are mutually beneficial. Excellent, thank you for that. And at that, I'll give you 10 seconds. 10 seconds. The accords again are a beginning, not an ending. And we need to do similar relative to national security operations in space and for commercial because the accords did not cover that. There's a lot of opportunities for trouble in both of those areas. I hope we can build similar coalitions of the willing to move forward with norms of behavior that will lead to a peaceful future. All right, thank you so much. And at that, let's give a round of applause to my panel. Thank you.