i

Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy

Artemis, Ethics and 

Society: Synthesis 

from a Workshop

Zachary Pirtle, Katherine McBrayer, Alyse Beauchemin 

Reviewers:

OTPS: Gabriel Swiney, Laura Delgado Lopez, Gabe Merrill 

Mission Directorate POCs: Nujoud Merancy, Jacob Bleacher, Amy 

Kaminski, Jenn Gustetic, Ryan Watkins, Debra Needham

September 21, 2023

Report ID 20230012799

NASA Headquarters 

300 E Street SW

Washington, DC 20024
For more information on the NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy to view this and other reports visit 

https://www.nasa.gov/offices/otps/home/index.html

Executive Summary

Artemis, Ethics and Society: Synthesis from a 

Workshop

Purpose and Goals 

As NASA plans and implements its Artemis and additional Moon to Mars activities, it will set 

precedents in spaceflight for decades to come. Including ethical and social considerations in 

Artemis planning will improve the likelihood that the future we create is one where humanity 

collectively wants to live. A wide range of stakeholders have called for NASA to address ethical 

and societal issues, notable examples being the U.S. National Academies’ recent Planetary 

Science and Astrobiology decadal survey and the U.S. National Science and Technology 

Council’s cislunar strategy. To begin to answer those calls, NASA convened a workshop 

focused on two key study questions: 1) How should NASA consider the ethical, legal, and 

societal implications (ELSI) of the Artemis and Moon to Mars efforts?; and 2) What are the key 

ethical and societal implications that need consideration? These questions can be considered 

as NASA pursues a series of increasingly complex Artemis missions that will enable human 

exploration to the Moon and Mars.

Methodology

NASA’s Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) hosted the Artemis and Ethics 

workshop April 12-14 at Agency Headquarters in Washington, DC. The workshop marks an 

initial foray into a topic that neither OTPS nor NASA have significantly engaged with outside of 

a few selected areas, such as NASA’s study of the societal implications of the Apollo program 

during the 1960s and the Agency’s astrobiology activities. OTPS invited 55 participants across 

a relevant and diverse range of disciplines, many of whom did not know each other in advance. 

These participants spanned social science, humanities and technical fields, and included policy 

actors and scholars, philosophers, historians, sociologists, communications studies scholars, 

lawyers, engineers and scientists. OTPS invited experts from these disciplines because each 

has an important perspective for understanding the ethical and societal implications of 

spaceflight. Interdisciplinary perspectives were sought to better explore the many facets of how 

September 21, 2023 Report ID 20230012799
iii

NASA and the space community should consider ethical and societal implications of space

activities tied to Artemis and the Moon and Mars.

Over the two-and-a-half-day workshop, participants listened to talks and engaged in 

brainstorming sessions on key ethical challenges in spaceflight, how ethical questions were 

handled in other scientific endeavors like the Human Genome Project, broader social 

challenges, and possible policy options to address these concerns.

We developed this report by systematically analyzing the conversations and inputs from 

participants, including qualitative coding of the presented topic themes. This analysis yielded a 

map of ELSI areas identified and discussed at the workshop. This informed key observations 

about the nature of ELSI for Moon to Mars activities and possible options for addressing them. 

This executive summary summarizes those observations, while the main report body discusses 

the underlying details and mappings we used to understand the discussions.

Observations for Considering Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of 

Artemis

We drew four main observations from the workshop discussions.

Observation 1

Participants identified key questions across cross cutting areas: 

a) Sharing the benefits of space activities: How should NASA work to the “benefit of all 

[humankind],” which is part of its mandate under the original Space Act that created 

NASA? Who is included in that statement and how should they be involved? How can 

NASA know who benefits from Artemis?

b) Reflecting on core values for exploration: How do we ensure that the values we bring to 

space are those we want as the basis of future exploration? The principles and goals 

that organizations use in their practices represent the values that are most likely to 

shape new engineered systems. It can be difficult to identify these values, especially 

those held by non-space actors.

c) Sustainability: Defining sustainability on the Moon is a complex challenge, as 

sustainability discussions in a terrestrial context, with questions of balancing 

conservation against societal needs, do not necessarily apply. The workshop also cited 

environmental impacts of space activities (including launches) on Earth.

d) Balancing shared access: Participants identified many operational challenges to 

prioritizing access to key sites, deconflicting activities, avoiding contamination, and 
iv

maintaining heritage sites. A recent OTPS analysis1 explored many of these practical 

concerns, which feed into broader ethical and societal implications.

e) Addressing cultural sensitivities: Participants identified cultural sensitivities surrounding 

payloads and activities on the Moon, which is viewed as sacred by many cultures 

worldwide. This may affect perceptions of increased NASA activity on the Moon for 

resource utilization and other goals. 

 

Observation 2

Participants mapped out many cultural and practical challenges to identifying and 

addressing ethical and societal implications of Artemis and Moon to Mars activities. 

a) Cultural challenges integrating social science with space engineering. Social scientists, 

humanities scholars, and technical staff initially struggled to communicate effectively due to

the vastly differing languages of the expertise at play. Many NASA staff lacked a framework 

to engage on these ethical issues, and some social science and humanities scholars lacked 

context for how decisions are made internally at NASA. A recommendation from some 

participants was to increase cross-pollination between the social scientists and NASA

Headquarters personnel.

b) Cultural challenges toward engineering versus reflection. NASA and other space 

organizations have a culture that often prioritizes moving forward efficiently versus more 

careful reflection and public engagement. Getting space practitioners to focus on long-term 

societal impacts, versus narrower scientific or technical problems, requires an attempt at 

culture change. 

c) Practical challenges in enabling reflection. Dedicated resources to study the ELSI of 

Artemis might be drawn from resources needed to accomplish a mission. Some 

participants also noted that NASA can have many unfunded mandates, despite large 

budgets for space activities. Dedicating resources or staff time to focus on societal and 

ethical challenges requires balancing to accomplish NASA’s planned missions.

d) Practical challenges with diffuse responsibility and control. Many Artemis ELSI are outside 

of NASA’s full control due to the involvement of international and commercial actors. These

ELSI include questions about who might get access to specific lunar surface regions first, 

and whether those sites are maintained for future generations.

e) Practical challenges in anticipating future ethical and societal concerns. Pressing ethical 

issues may emerge unexpectedly as a second-order effect of NASA decisions. In light of 

this, proactive exploration of future ethical and societal issues is needed. For example, a

cultural sensitivity about commercial payloads with human remains flying alongside NASA 

Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) deliveries is a key example discussed in the 

1 Swiney, Gabriel and Amanda Hernandez. 2022. Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analysis. NASA 

Report ID 20220015973.
v

report and involves diffuse responsibilities. While NASA has said it would not send human 

remains to the Moon without consulting U.S. tribal nations, the CLPS initiative’s funding of 

commercial deliveries on private landers has enabled non-NASA payloads, including human 

remains to become manifested on these private flights. Some cultures see the Moon as 

having spiritual significance and believe placing human remains on the Moon can disturb 

the sanctity of the Moon. 

Observation 3

A community of researchers working on ELSI is interested in ongoing engagement with NASA 

and the space community on these topics.

OTPS brought together many disciplines across social science, humanities, and technical 

fields. These disciplines haven’t worked together before in the context of space exploration. 

The workshop helped integrate these external disciplines, enabling participants both inside and 

outside NASA to understand each other’s perspectives. Several participants discussed 

creating their own non-NASA community to build on the discussions at this event.

Observation 4

Participants discussed a range of options that NASA and the space community may use to 

address the ethical implications of Artemis. These reflect participants views and are not 

recommendations from NASA:

a) The following are examples of methods suggested by participants for how NASA could 

address ELSI:

i. Policy: ELSI expertise can be integrated into existing policy structures such as 

federal advisory committees, creating incentives for responsible actions, and 

using public values to determine NASA goals.

ii. Management: NASA’s internal management can better focus on ethical/societal 

implications through clarity about the importance of ethical reflection, 

recognizing societal impacts in systems engineering, better utilizing the formal 

NASA Strategic Plan and Performance reporting processes to capture ethical 

issues, and budgeting to support ELSI capability.

iii. Research: NASA can establish a capability to address research questions in this 

area, and – to access this appropriately – create frameworks to help guide future 

activity, such as sustainability, stewardship, and equity. The workshop identified 

participatory assessments with the public and other key stakeholders to create a 

map of public values as a way to get relevant information to decision-makers.

iv. Conversations: This refers to engaging with the public, social science and 

humanities experts, and under-represented groups as well as those in technical

fields. These conversations matter symbolically and practically as a way to 
vi

exchange ideas and values between NASA and others and can indirectly shape 

management and policy.

v. Education: There are ways to improve insight on ethical/societal issues for 

existing space practitioners, students, and the general public.

b) Participants suggested that key models that NASA and the space community can 

consider are the U.S. Human Genome Project’s funding of ELSI research and the 

European Commission research programs for Responsible Innovation. 

c) Some of the policy options discussed in the report would require no dedicated funding

(such as changing decision processes), whereas others, such as public consultations or 

dedicated research, would. Some combination of these activities seems likely to be of 

value, but also would come with a tradeoff of impacting already budget-constrained 

programs and projects at NASA and elsewhere. 

Conclusion

The insights captured in this report can raise awareness within NASA and the broader space 

community of the ethical implications that might arise in future Moon to Mars planning and 

ways to address them. Continued dialog and engagement with the various disciplines and 

perspectives represented in this report has value and is of a strong interest among social 

science and humanities scholars as well as reflective space practitioners.

OTPS has forward work plans that will incorporate insights from this report. OTPS is 

formulating a new internal study to identify key policy questions likely to emerge leading up to 

the Artemis III mission, the first human landing on the Moon in more than five decades. OTPS 

will consider potential decisions with ethical and societal implications as part of that study and

subsequent discussions with NASA leadership. Separately, OTPS is formulating ways to 

converse on these topics with NASA’s international partners, understanding how they feel ELSI 

should be considered. OTPS is keen to receive feedback on the ideas captured in the report,

which will be discussed at upcoming events such as the AIAA ASCEND conference and the 

Lunar Exploration Advisory Group, among others.
vii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ ii

Purpose and Goals ............................................................................................................... ii

Methodology ........................................................................................................................ ii

Observations for Considering Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Artemis ..................... iii

Observation 1........................................................................................................................................iii

Observation 2........................................................................................................................................iv

Observation 3........................................................................................................................................ v

Observation 4........................................................................................................................................ v

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... vi

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. vii

NASA’s Past and Current Engagement on Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications 

(ELSI) of Space Exploration............................................................................................... 1

Workshop Goals and Study Questions............................................................................. 3

Key Discussion Themes and Insights............................................................................... 4

Map of Key Ethical and Societal Implications .................................................................. 6

Discussion of Policy, Management and Research Options .......................................... 11

Analysis of Observations................................................................................................. 16

Observation 1......................................................................................................................................16

Observation 2......................................................................................................................................18

Observation 3......................................................................................................................................19

Observation 4......................................................................................................................................19

Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 21

Future Work ...................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix A: Participants ................................................................................................. 23

Appendix B: How NASA Formulated the Artemis and Ethics Workshop..................... 25

Brainstorming and Discussion Session Formulation .............................................................. 27

Appendix C: Summary of Presentations and Discussions ........................................... 28
viii

Historical context and how to consider ethical issues ............................................................ 28

Context on space policy, law, and NASA ............................................................................. 29

Significant Ethical and Societal Implications ......................................................................... 31

Challenges and opportunities for considering ethical and societal issues ................................ 34

Considering research funding on ethical and societal implications research ............................ 36

How to justify and show the benefit of NASA ........................................................................ 37

Concluding Themes........................................................................................................... 38

Appendix D: Management and Policy Process Approaches for How NASA Should 

Consider Ethical and Societal Aspects of Artemis ........................................................ 39

Appendix E: What are Key Ethical and Societal Implications in Artemis and Moon to 

Mars?................................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix F: Artemis and Ethics workshop agenda ...................................................... 54

Appendix G: Acknowledgments...................................................................................... 56

Appendix H: Acronyms .................................................................................................... 57

 
1

NASA’s Past and Current Engagement on Ethical, Legal, and 

Societal Implications (ELSI) of Space Exploration

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 states that “activities in space should be 

devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all [humankind].” Assessing how NASA’s Moon

to Mars work benefits “all humankind” can be complex. NASA has a long tradition of forwardthinking research, including research on the ethical and societal impacts of the Apollo Program

in the 1960s,

2 and a 2007 historical volume on the Agency’s societal impact. NASA also has a 

history of exploring potential ethical and societal impacts of astrobiology research, primarily the 

implications of finding extraterrestrial life.

3 NASA has enlisted outside thinkers to speculate on 

the future of humanity.

4 Other U.S. government activities have included research on the ethical 

and societal aspects of science in general, such as the Human Genome Project. NASA has 

not, however, systematically addressed the societal and ethical implications5 of human 

exploration, including the ongoing Moon to Mars effort. 

Recent years have brought several calls for research on the ethical and societal aspects of 

NASA’s Moon to Mars work. Some of NASA’s international partners highlighted the need for 

broader engagement at the 2022 Moon to Mars Objectives workshop in London; so did the 

2022 summary report from a Lunar Surface Science workshop on Inclusive Lunar Exploration.

6

The latter called for research on how to integrate existing expertise in the social sciences and 

humanities into NASA decision-making. The National Academies’ recent Planetary Science and 

Astrobiology Decadal Survey said NASA should study the ethics of planetary in-situ resource 

2 Coopersmith, J., 2008. Great (Unfulfilled) Expectations: To Boldly Go Where No Social Scientist or Historian 

Has Gone Before. In: Steven Dick (ed), Remembering the Space Age. NASA Special Publication 4703, p.135.

Coopersmith argues that the effect of these efforts didn’t have a chance to succeed, but they did bring in 

interested groups of scholars to discuss these issues. 

3 NASA has done societal and ethical implications research focused on astrobiology, specifically addressing 

implications of the possible future discovery of life. Planetary protection is also another area where NASA has 

thought about ethical implications proactively. For astrobiology research, see Roth, C.B.N. and Shindell, M., 

2007. Workshop Report: Philosophical, Ethical and Theological Implications of Astrobiology. AAAS; and Dick, 

S.J. 2018. Astrobiology, Discovery, and Societal Impacts. Cambridge University Press. 

4

In the early 2000s, NASA administrator Dan Goldin directed study of the future of humanity in 100 years. 

They brought in sci-fi authors, academics and others to examine the future of humanity across 100 years. 

Rejeski, D. and Wobig, C., 2002. Long‐term goals for governments. foresight, 4(6), pp.14-22.

5 Some have criticized research on Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications work by stating that ‘implications’ 

assumes that technical decisions will occur regardless of what ethical concerns are raised, which raises risks 

of ‘ethics washing,’ or insincere engagement. NASA seeks to sincerely reflect and make decisions based on 

the results of this research, and as such using the word ‘implications’ is not meant to reflect a one-way 

approach to listening to ethical issues. Also, there can often be implications of specific decisions, including 

decisions not to engage in work in a particular area. 

6 Bennett, K.A. and P. Prem. 2022. Reflections from the Inclusive Lunar Exploration Lunar Surface Science 

Workshop. Advancing IDEA in Planetary Science. P. 2048. Available at: 

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022LPICo2679.2048B/abstract
2

utilization.

7

(Many of the topics identified in the ethics-related white papers that led to that 

recommendation were the subject of presentations and discussion at the Artemis and Ethics

workshop). 

NASA has been working to codify the need to assess ethical and societal implications in ways 

that reflect a significant realignment and structuring of Agency goals. In September 2022, 

NASA released its latest Moon to Mars Objectives report, which was updated and expanded 

based on solicited input from individuals, industry, academia and international space agencies.

8

These updated objectives elevate science to a higher priority than had historically been the 

case for human exploration programs and centered some of the rationale for human 

exploration on benefits including improvements to the human condition, economic growth, and

scientific return. These benefits are described in detail in an April 2023 NASA document on the 

Moon to Mars strategy.

9

Of particular relevance, the Moon to Mars Objectives report had “responsible use” as a 

recurring tenet (RT-6) of how NASA will explore, stating that NASA will “conduct all activities for 

the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes consistent with international 

obligations, and principles for responsible behavior in space.” This raises questions about the 

definition of responsible behavior, which requires an understanding of the societal and ethical 

implications of NASA’s activities. In the 2023 Architecture Definition Document, NASA stated 

that “the responsible use of the Moon to Mars architecture may require deeper scrutiny of 

cultural and societal implications of future exploration.”10 The Artemis and Ethics Workshop and 

the analysis in this report represents an initial effort to help advance understanding in that area, 

which will inform continued refinement of NASA’s Moon to Mars plans.

7 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022. Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal 

Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032, p. 19-6: ““NASA would benefit from convening a 

team of experts to review the ethics of planetary ISRU and determine optimal plans and processes to ensure 

sustainable and responsible resource utilization. Humans are the trustees of our planetary environments for 

future generations. “Note: Decadal surveys are high profile and significant external studies that are used by 

NASA, Congress and other key stakeholders such as the scientific community to select future missions. The 

current report authors are not aware of a similar point about ethics being made in a past Decadal Survey.

8 The process to create the Moon to Mars objectives solicited input from industry, academics and the general 

public, through a broad call to which anyone could provide input. NASA reviewed this material and then 

worked with some commenters as part of revising the final objectives. They are captured in: NASA, 2022a. 

NASA’s Stakeholder Collaborations Help Inform Moon to Mars Planning. RELEASE 22-098. Link. NASA 

2022b. Moon to Mars Objectives. September 2022. Link.

9 NASA 2023a. NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives Development: A blueprint for sustained human 

presence and exploration throughout the solar system. NP-2023-03-31-3115-HQ. 

10 NASA 2023b. Moon-to-Mars Architecture Definition Document. Exploration Systems Development Mission 

Directorate. NASA/TP-20230002706. Page 108. 
3

Workshop Goals and Study Questions

The key study questions for the workshop were: 1) How should NASA consider the ELSI of the 

Artemis and Moon to Mars efforts?; and 2) What are the key ethical and societal implications 

that need consideration? 

Given this context, OTPS planned and hosted the Artemis and Ethics workshop April 12-14, 

2023. We will briefly summarize the planning process here. Full details are in Appendix B. 

OTPS focused the workshop on studying and framing how to address long-term ethical and 

societal aspects of Artemis and the Moon to Mars effort. Such insights could support NASA’s 

vision for sustainable and responsible exploration, as robust and transparent ethical dialog 

helps enable long-term shared visions and public benefit. OTPS also sought to identify best 

practices for conducting such research, as well as to create a map of key ethical and societal 

issues in the Moon to Mars effort. 

The workshop intentionally solicited a variety of viewpoints on how to approach the key 

questions and issues and was not meant to produce a consensus perspective. For speakers 

and discussion participants, we solicited different views and rationales that we thought would 

be relevant, though we did limit the scope to Moon and Mars exploration.11 OTPS invited 55 

participants across a diverse set of disciplines, and most did not know one another in advance.

These participants represented social science, humanities and technical fields, and included

policy actors and scholars, philosophers, historians, sociologists, communications studies 

scholars, lawyers, engineers and scientists. Through this diversity we hoped to explore many 

facets of how NASA should consider ethical and societal implications. Given the past 

challenges of infusing ethical and societal impacts research into practice,

12 20 of the invitees 

were NASA civil servants from a variety of offices and programs – not just Artemis – and OTPS 

asked them to engage from their personal perspectives. The idea was to identify new 

11 OTPS focused content on Artemis and Moon to Mars, and as such excluded from analysis broader issues 

facing NASA; for example, we did not focus on space activities in Low Earth Orbit and on the International 

Space Station, nor did we focus on purely robotic exploration as done by NASA’s Planetary Science Division. 

OTPS also tried to focus on broader ethical and societal implications discourse and did not solicit presentation 

on specific issues such as safety and its associated ethical impacts. Given that NASA has other organizations 

responsible for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA), OTPS did not focus on soliciting DEIA 

presentation writ large. DEIA issues of course emerged in discussion from the workshop, given their 

importance for societal impact. For readers interested in DEIA as a topic, see NASA 2022. NASA Strategic 

Plan for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility: Fiscal Years 2022-2026. Link.

12 Some have argued that few practitioners have taken the results of ethical and societal impacts research 

into practical account. It is unclear whether this is due to insufficient resources or due to the challenge of 

doing practically-relevant ethical research. See Sullivan, M., 2018. The Expansion of Science Policy in the 

United States in Three Cases: rDNA Research, The Human Genome Project, and the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative (Doctoral dissertation).
4

understandings of the ethics of exploration of the Moon and Mars and possible actions that 

could be accomplished by NASA.

We sought to take advantage of the diverse viewpoints through extended discussions and 

brainstorming sessions. The goal was to better understand how NASA’s Artemis and Moon to 

Mars activities should consider ethical and societal implications. In the first brainstorming 

session, for example, we asked participants to write thoughts on sticky notes to highlight 

ethical and societal topics or implications of Artemis that they felt were important or that 

merited deeper conversation during the workshop. This approach was intended to provide a 

quick map of ethical perspectives and issues across the varied disciplines. A later session 

focused on mapping out practical challenges and opportunities for considering these societal 

and ethical issues. Results from both sessions are discussed below and in dedicated 

appendices. 

Given that this is an initial exploratory study, we do not make formal recommendations but 

rather map out the range of options that might be available to NASA and other space actors 

that want to more deeply explore this area. While the foregoing captures our intent and 

approach to organizing the workshop, we emphasize that the views expressed by the 

workshop participants do not necessarily reflect the views of NASA or the United States 

Government. Our formal invocation of “OTPS” in this report indicates when statements are 

being made officially on behalf of NASA, whereas other discussions reflect only views of the 

participants and the report authors as individuals.

Key Discussion Themes and Insights

The following very briefly summarizes some of the key themes from the workshop, which are 

discussed at greater length in Appendix C.

Across the various brainstorming and discussion sessions, multiple, open exchanges occurred. 

NASA participants were encouraged to share their personal views on these issues, and many 

engaged with empathy. Some of the external speakers noted about how NASA staff 

engagement helped them understand the practical challenges in considering these topics

inside the Agency. Early-career NASA participants also engaged significantly.

The discussions highlighted the challenges in assembling a group with diverse expertise. While 

some participants were familiar with the work of others within their fields, many were not well 

acquainted with the frameworks of scholars from different disciplines. The presence of scholars 

who had previously studied ELSI, along with those involved in responsible innovation research, 

brought diverse perspectives and tools for addressing the ethical and societal implications of 

spaceflight. The presence of non-governmental organizations, such as the Just Space Alliance, 

For All Mankind, and Open Lunar Foundation, enriched the conversation. There were many 

university researchers whose affiliations are noted in the participant list appendix.
5

The workshop discussions covered key conceptual and practical challenges. Many 

international and commercial actors are interested in or engaged at the Moon, and many

participants saw NASA as an orchestrator of the emerging lunar economy given its funding of

cislunar activities, despite its lack of regulatory authority. Complex issues such as 

environmental impacts to the Moon from sustained human activity were discussed, along with 

challenges in thinking about or even defining sustainability in the lunar context. 

The discussion extended to justifying the benefits of human exploration, with one speaker 

arguing that empirical assessments have not sufficiently demonstrated the societal benefits that 

would justify the cost of human exploration. Several speakers emphasized the need for clarity in 

the fundamental values guiding space exploration and actions. Various participants also 

underscored the importance of international collaboration, understanding the reasons behind 

exploration, and refining the values underlying the Artemis efforts.

Insights were shared on the unique cultures within NASA and on the influence of societal and 

local culture on the interpretation of ethical issues. There was emphasis on the importance of 

team cohesion and the need for context-sensitive approaches to ethical issues. Another theme

was funding opportunities and constraints for ethical and societal implications research, with 

these discussions highlighting existing conference grants (e.g., Topical Workshops, Symposia, 

and Conferences (TWSC)), ROSES solicitations,

13 and the EU's past practice of dedicating a 

percentage of total funding to societal and ethical issues.

Suggestions for how NASA and other space actors could focus on ethical and societal 

challenges included implementing more structured public input in strategic planning and 

incorporating ethical and societal implications into specific Agency planning processes and 

operational procedures.

Participants noted that NASA’s operational decisions can have unintended consequences, a 

prime example being issues surrounding flying human remains to the Moon aboard NASAfunded but commercially operated spacecraft. Tribal nations raised concern when NASA’s 

Lunar Prospector spacecraft crashed into the lunar surface in 1998 with human remains 

aboard, prompting NASA to apologize and promise not to do that again without prior 

consultation with indigenous peoples and others.

14 One workshop participant said some lunar

community members have voiced concerns about private companies manifesting human 

remains on CLPS delivery missions to several key stakeholders, and claimed that no 

13 Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science (ROSES-2023). These are major annual procurements 

used by NASA for research.

14 Volante, Enric. “Navajos Upset After Ashes Sent to Moon; NASA Apologizes.” The Spokesman-Review. 

January 15, 1998. This story was recently cited in Bennett and Prem (2022), op cit.
6

stakeholder felt able to do anything. Some participants were troubled by what they saw as 

diffuse responsibility, and by the idea that no regulatory mechanism exists for such missions 

that takes ethical considerations into account. NASA funds CLPS missions but lacks regulatory 

authority with respect to privately manifested payloads and might not have contractual 

authority to keep culturally sensitive private payloads off the manifests.

Map of Key Ethical and Societal Implications

OTPS created an initial map of ethical and societal implications tied to Artemis and the Moon to 

Mars effort. We did this through a brainstorming session where participants wrote thoughts on 

sticky notes describing ethical and societal implications. Participants identified approximately 

140 ethical or societal topics or implications, current and future, related to NASA’s Moon to 

Mars activities. Participants were then asked to mark with a sticker the sticky note ideas they 

thought were the most significant for NASA and the space community to consider. We (the 

report authors) documented and reviewed all ideas to synthesize the key implications or 

categories.

Table 1 shows a map of those key categories and implications. We show representative 

examples of the ideas that comprise each category but recognize that they represent only 

potential challenges raised by individuals, and their inclusion in this report does not reflect an 

endorsement by NASA or the U.S. Government. A complete list of ideas presented during the 

first brainstorming session can be found in Appendix E.
7

Table 1: Summary of Key Ethical and Societal Issues (with selected examples provided by participants with edits for clarity. Inclusion of participant ideas does not 

represent an endorsement by NASA or the U.S. Government.)

Topics Sample ideas

Defining Ambiguous 

Terms

Definition of "accessibility" (about who is able to go to space)

Definition of "sustainable" (on the Moon and Mars)

Who Makes Decisions and

Communicates with the 

Public 

How should heritage sites or other areas of significance be selected for protection? Who decides what is worth protecting? 

When NASA asks for community input, how can they ensure they connect broadly with diverse groups?

Public values not incorporated purposefully into NASA strategy, program budget 

How should NASA communicate to the public how the Agency is thinking about social and ethical issues related to Artemis?

What does the public think?

Differing Cultural Values

How can NASA best be aware of all cultural issues surrounding human space exploration?

How does this process/workshop add to present processes where values/ethics are "baked" into regular governing/"democracy," etc.?

Differing cultural understandings of the Moon 

Societal challenge: Everyone has different views and there will always be someone who opposes

Sharing Benefits Inequality: How are benefits distributed? 

Environmental Ethics How can environmental ethics be integrated? 

As space exploration continues to grow, are we being mindful of its impact on the environment? 

Historical Values and 

Colonialism

Mismatch between rhetoric of why we go to space and the reality of how we have actually explored space

Not repeating the mistakes of colonialism

Policy and Governance

How are we going to resolve a conflict? What happens if two entities want to operate in the same patch?

How do we engender long term responsibility for activities taken by companies and governments?

Can we devise rules for space mining incrementally (i.e., learn as we go) or must they all be spelled out beforehand?

What can we send to the Moon? (Currently, the public can buy payload space on a private lander for any payloads)

Legal framework to enforce ethical compliance

Reflective Capacity by 

Practitioners ELSI absorptive capacity inside NASA

Flexibility for Change Is Artemis "too big to fail?" (i.e., will Artemis continue despite concerns about goals or ELSI?)

Is Artemis "too small to succeed?" (i.e., should the Artemis vision transcend the Moon and Mars)?

Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion, and Accessibility 

(DEIA)

What happens if someone is disabled during a long-duration mission? 

Create a 53rd Space Grant for National Native American Space Grant

Education and Workforce Engineers/scientist receive little to no ethics training; they are focused on technical aspects only.

Lack of humanities/social scientists integrated as team members
8

We organized the inputs from the first brainstorming session into the following topic categories

based on our understanding of their ethical intent, with examples included in Table 1 above:

• Defining Ambiguous Terms (Approximately 4.21% of the condensed list of ethical ideas 

presented at the workshop15)

• Who Makes Decisions and Communicates with the Public (Approximately 12.63% of 

the condensed list of ethical ideas presented at the workshop)

• Differing Cultural Values (Approximately 11.58% of the condensed list of ethical ideas 

presented at the workshop)

• Sharing Benefits (Approximately 2.11% of the condensed list of ethical ideas presented 

at the workshop)

• Environmental Ethics (Approximately 13.68% of the condensed list of ethical ideas 

presented at the workshop)

• Historical Values and Colonialism (Approximately 7.37% of the condensed list of ethical 

ideas presented at the workshop)

• Policy and Governance (Approximately 23.16% of the condensed list of ethical ideas 

presented at the workshop)

• Reflective Capacity by Practitioners (Approximately 8.42% of the condensed list of

ethical ideas presented at the workshop)

• Flexibility for Change (Approximately 3.16% of the condensed list of ethical ideas 

presented at the workshop)

• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) (Approximately 9.47% of the

condensed list of total ethical ideas presented at the workshop) 

• Education and Workforce (Approximately 4.21% of the condensed list of ethical ideas 

presented at the workshop)

To guide our comprehension and analysis of ethics concerns during the topical organization 

process, we also grouped the condensed list of 95 ideas into four themes: Decision Process, 

Theoretical, Forecasting, and Substantive Issues. Some ideas fell into two categories and were 

counted for both thematic categories in the statistics below. The individual thematic categories

are defined below:

• Decision Process: The process by which NASA or other relevant policy-making 

agencies make decisions. For NASA, this could include changing how decisions are 

15 Originally, there were approximately 142 ideas identified but the list was condensed to 95 ideas by study 

leads due to similarities between topics or judged appropriateness to the study. The condensed list 

represents these 95 ideas.
9

made, such as modifying what information is considered, who is consulted and how 

decision-makers weigh options and ultimately decide. Approximately 38.6% of the 95

ethical ideas presented at the workshop relate to the decision process theme.

• Theoretical: A framework or set of values that can help guide future decisions on a 

topic. This can include desired end states such as ‘being sustainable’ or represent 

concepts and approaches for considering future Artemis and Moon to Mars issues.

Approximately 34.2% of the 95 ethical ideas (the largest percentage per theme) 

presented at the workshop relate to the theoretical theme. 

• Forecasting: Uncertainty about the future and how people, space agencies, companies 

and other actors in the lunar space will behave after Artemis and Moon to Mars plans 

are finalized. Approximately 13.16% of the 95 ethical ideas presented at the workshop 

relate to the forecasting theme. 

• Substantive Issues: Specific dilemmas or choices that NASA and/or other space actors 

will face that have important ethical or societal implications. These topics may be wellsuited for future discussion by decision makers. Approximately 14.04% of the 95 ethical 

ideas presented at the workshop relate to the substantive theme.16

Figure 1 depicts an analysis of ethical and societal implications organized by topic and theme. 

This figure helps identify areas that might benefit from more theoretical research or deeper 

discussion of process changes, and which areas deal with significant unknowns about the 

future. This was used as a tool to help think about these topics and informed how we structured 

some of the observations noted in the Executive Summary. We hope that academics and 

space practitioners can benefit from reflecting on this map as they envision their future work.

We don’t call out ‘substantive issues’ in this diagram, as those topics usually involved multiple 

themes.

16 Some ethical ideas fell into two thematic categories and were counted for both categories. The theme 

percentages for each ethical idea only in one thematic category are as follows: Decision Process – 26.32%, 

Theoretical – 30.53%, Forecasting – 14.74%, and Substance Issues – 8.42%. The remaining 19.99% of 

ethical ideas are those which fell in two categories: Decision Process and Theoretical – 10.53%, Decision 

Process and Forecast—1.05%, and Decision Process and Substantive Issues—8.42%.
10

Figure 1: Diagram of ethical and societal implications organized by topic (blue font) and theme (labeled circles). 

We evaluated topics marked as significant by workshop participants as well as those that we as 

study leads and authors believed were important. Examples are found in Table 1 above. The 

rest of this section discusses some key takeaways from our analysis.

Most of the ethical issues flagged by participants and study leads alike fell within the “Policy

and Governance” topic area. Two examples are “How do we engender long-term responsibility 

for actions taken by companies on governments” and “What can we send to the Moon?”

The single ethical issue most frequently flagged by individual participants, “Not repeating the 

mistakes of colonialism,” fell under the “Historical Values and Colonialism” coding category. It 

had a total of eight stickers. The second most flagged idea, with seven stickers was “Differing 

cultural understandings of the Moon.” Tied for third, each with five stickers, were a number of 

issues listed below:

• “Which are the main imaginaries [visions, goals and worldviews] about space 

exploration at global south?” 

• “How do we design vessels and habitats that can accommodate people with disabilities”

• “What does the public think?”

• “How to arrive at shared definitions of equity and benefit sharing”

• “Definition of sustainable”

• “Potential for militarization of the lunar surface driven by economic protection”

• “Environmental ethics can be integrated how?” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
11

• “Debris Management/Waste Removal etc.”

The overall diversity of topical categories reveals the enormity of societal and ethical issues 

surrounding the Artemis and Moon to Mars endeavor. 

Finally, while the discussions outlined above focused on categories for different kinds of ethical 

matters, many flagged items dealt with specific topics that require specific decisions. We 

referred to these as “Substantive Issues,” examples of which include: 

• How should heritage sites or other areas of significance be selected for protection? Who 

decides what is worth protecting?

• “Water” (as in access, sharing, and regulation)

• What can we send to the Moon? (mentioned in the context of lunar burials)

• What happens if someone is disabled during a long-duration mission?

Many of these questions may require formal decisions in the near term, while implicit decisions 

are being made now that will shape future action.

Discussion of Policy, Management and Research Options

The workshop held focused discussions asking participants to identify challenges to addressing 

ELSI inside NASA as well as potential solutions. We grouped the resulting suggestions into five 

categories: management, policy, research, conversations, and education. These categories, 

along with sub-themes and descriptions, are shown in Table 2 below. The details are captured 

in Appendix D.

Table 2: Summary table of the management, policy, research, conversation, and education policy options identified in the 

workshop

Category Theme Description 

Management 

Accountability Making ethical commitments 

clearly and publicly

Budget Allocating funding to grow ELSI 

capability

Contractual Mechanisms to shape contractor 

behavior

Internal Agency Changes Encouraging reflection via 

performance plans, other

Leadership Clear expectations of 

responsibility from leadership

Reporting Use formal strategic plan 

reporting to guide/report ELSI
12

Category Theme Description 

Staffing Hire new ELSI expertise into 

NASA

Strategy Incorporate reflection

s on ELSI 

issues into high-level strategy 

Systems Engineering Include societal impact in 

requirements, define clearly

Policy 

Advisory process Add ELSI experts to NASA 

Advisory Council, other

Incentives Incentivize ELSI inclusion in and 

outside of NASA 

Collaborations

Multi-stakeholder collaboration, 

including under-represented 

groups

Planetary Protection Explore ELSI connections to 

planetary protection

Research 

Benchmarking Identify practices of other 

agencies and countries

Capability Funding for and access to ELSI 

experts

Convening mechanism Mechanisms to involve 

researchers on ELSI issues

Framework Research on specific thematic 

issues, i.e., sustainability

Public Value Mapping Mapping public values, using 

inputs to inform decisions

Motivating ELSI

Provide evidence that shows the 

value of ELSI through proof-ofconcept implementations 

Conversation 

Convening mechanism

Bringing different groups and 

perspectives together to 

converse

Inter-disciplinary

Discussions across disciplines 

(e.g., social science, humanities, 

and technical fields)

International Discussing ELSI with 

international actors

Intra-NASA Internal to NASA, across 

leadership and workforce

Public and science Between space actors and 

broader society

Education Public Enhance ELSI awareness in 

space activities
13

Category Theme Description 

Practitioner-focused

Training current space 

practitioners, including NASA 

staff

Student-focused Training next generation of STEM 

and social scientists

Practitioner- and student-focused For both students and 

practitioners

The broad map of ways to address societal and ethical impacts of Artemis and Moon to Mars is 

shown below17. While these participant suggestions focused on NASA, the broader space 

community can consider comparable approaches.

Policy Options: There are ways to involve ELSI considerations and expertise in existing policy 

structures. Representative ideas here included: 

• Advisory committees and a “NAC for ethics”: Some workshop discussion focused on 

the role that federal advisory committees play in shaping NASA’s suggestions. A NASA 

employee suggested that participants find a way to convince the NASA Advisory 

Council (NAC) to recommend ethical approaches to space exploration, as formal 

requests for input by advisory groups require responses from government agencies. For 

Moon to Mars activities, the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group was identified as one of

the core external advisory bodies. There were variations on this advisory group idea: 

One participant suggested creating a NAC committee dedicated to ethical reflection. 

Additional reflection on ethics from advisory committees could provide nonprogrammatically biased advice and recommendations on ELSI matters related to the 

Agency and its programs. It could also find ways to incorporate public values into NASA 

goals. 

• Diverse collaboration: NASA can work with traditionally underrepresented groups in the 

space community, such as Tribal Nations and developing countries, to identify ethical 

considerations for future missions that otherwise might be overlooked, as was 

suggested by a speaker from a Tribal Nation. The same participant also suggested

using holistic ecological frameworks to better consider environmental due regard.

• Funding community capacity: NASA could fund social scientist participation in space 

exploration ethics conferences to grow the community and sustain the discussions from 

the workshop. One non-NASA scientist said NASA has funding opportunities to 

17 Our concept of ‘map’ here is a deliberate variation from public value mapping: Bozeman, B. and Sarewitz, 

D., 2011. Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49, pp.1-23.
14

organize topical workshops (e.g., TWSCs), which could sustain the ethics and 

spaceflight discussion, with particular respect to the Artemis endeavor. Inside NASA, if

more staff had capability in this area, it could be easier to better inform operations by 

NASA and the broader space community. 

Management Options: The workshop discussed ways in which NASA’s internal management 

efforts could better focus on ethical and societal implications of programs and missions.

Participants suggested management options including:

• Clarifying of role of ethics at NASA: As suggested by one workshop participant, NASA 

leadership can clarify the importance of ethical reflection in missions and programs. This 

could include defining “ethics” for NASA, making ethics a guiding NASA value and

implementing ethics into a systems design framework.

• Encouraging greater social science integration: One speaker presented on ways NASA 

can integrate the social sciences into team settings for missions. One of this speaker’s 

suggestions was to identify opportunities within a mission’s technical process to 

address ethical issues as they arise. The speaker also described how “value-lever” 

moments, like realizing that a space mission patch could have colonialist symbolism, 

can force participants to address the value frameworks they are operating under. This 

opportunity to discuss values can lead to social change, according to this speaker.

• Inserting ethics in the NASA strategic planning process: One participant discussed how 

social values and ethics considerations can be inserted into NASA’s formal strategic 

plan and performance reporting process. Another participant said an effective way to 

integrate ELSI at NASA was through structured engagement with social science experts

versus obligatory and perfunctory funding of ELSI activities such as continued 

workshops. Another suggested that structured participatory technology assessment 

could illuminate public views for consideration by NASA staff. 

• Incentivizing responsible behavior and collaboration: In a brainstorming session, a 

participant suggested that NASA create industry incentives for working with underrepresented groups.

• Expanding ethical analysis activities by space practitioners: Having space practitioners 

spend time reflecting on ethical and societal implications can require time and 

dedicated research frameworks. A participant recommended that ethical and societal 

inputs, in order to be prioritized, be defined in ways that can be put into staff 

performance plans and considered accordingly.

• Adding ethical considerations to planetary protection policy: A participant in a 

brainstorming session suggested that NASA leadership include ethics, in addition to the 

preservation of future science, as a driver of planetary protection policy. 
15

Research Options: Workshop participants discussed how further spaceflight ethics research 

can inform how NASA and other space agencies create frameworks to guide future activity in 

areas like sustainability. Below is a list of participant-suggested actions which could be taken 

by researchers to advance ethical spaceflight:

• Benchmarking with other space agencies: One group of participants suggested during 

a brainstorming session a strategy of ethical benchmarking with other space agencies’ 

practices. Researchers could compare the ethical practices and regulations of other 

countries, not just in spaceflight, but also in other STEM-related fields. 

• Establishing ethics research at NASA: Some participants suggested that travel grants to

attend conferences and talks on spaceflight ethics be made available to stimulate more 

frequent conversations between scientists and ethicists. Additionally, one participant

recommended NASA begin ethical assessments of human Mars activities now to give 

the spaceflight community time to fully evaluate any concerns before mission 

development. The comment reflected sentiment that the Artemis ethics workshop was 

held late in that regard.

• Further developing the ELSI frameworks and concepts for space exploration and 

science: Participants during another brainstorming session said researchers interested 

in spaceflight ethics could further develop the field by crafting solution-oriented ethical 

language, developing external assessments of new ethical ideas and stances, and 

demonstrating the positive value of ethics. 

Conversations Options: Deliberately seeking out conversations on ethical and societal 

implications can broaden NASA’s perspectives and help decision makers understand a 

broader array of values and perspectives surrounding Moon to Mars issues. Several 

participants suggested conversations that NASA should have, including engaging with the 

public, social science and humanities experts, and under-represented groups as well as those 

in technical fields. Another participant suggested that more effort be made to include the voices 

of international social scientists in future ethics workshops as Artemis is engaging many 

international partners.

18

Education Options: Educational options suggested at the workshop include finding ways to 

improve ethical/societal insight for existing space practitioners, students, and the general 

public. Participants suggested the following opportunities for increased education on

spaceflight ethics:

18 On June 28, 2023, the French space agency CNES announced that it will stand up a space mission ethics 

committee in fall of 2023 to inform the agency on spaceflight-related ethical concerns. See: 

https://presse.cnes.fr/fr/le-cnes-met-en-place-un-comite-dethique-des-missions-spatiales. 
16

• Training the next generation: A brainstorming group suggested that ethics training be 

integrated into STEM education materials as well as internships and early-career inhouse training. This training could serve as a foundation for future ethicists, scientists, 

and engineers to engage on STEM-related ethics, especially ethics surrounding the 

Moon to Mars effort. 

• Social science training for practicing engineers: Provide a deeper understanding to 

engineers and scientists about ethical and societal contexts. One attendee described 

how there can be a stigma associated with social sciences and that education may be 

required to overcome that stigma.

• Engineering, science and management training for ethicists: One brainstorming group 

advocated technical, science and management training for ethicists and social 

scientists so they can think about ethics with an understanding of the technical 

challenges and procedures associated with space missions.

• Speaking the Same Language: Joint educational efforts could enable ethicists and 

engineers to talk about the ethics of space exploration in a common language, the lack 

of which was identified as a key challenge at the event.

Analysis of Observations

Over the course of the workshop, four key observations emerged. The first is the identification 

of the key ELSI of Artemis. The second is the mapping of cultural and practical challenges to 

identifying and addressing ELSI for Artemis. The third is that a diverse community of 

researchers are interested in engaging in these topics. The fourth is there are a range of policy 

options to address ELSI, some that have domestic or international heritage.

Observation 1

The key ELSI of Artemis involve sharing the benefits of space exploration, reflecting on core 

values for exploration, sustainability, balancing shared access, and addressing cultural 

sensitivities around lunar payloads and activities. 

The Outer Space Treaty, National Aeronautics and Space Act, and Artemis Accords all call for 

space exploration to be done for the benefit of all humankind. However, what that means for 

NASA is very much open to interpretation, and there are many questions that this simple 

statement raises. For example, how does NASA work toward that? Who is included in that 

objective and how should they be involved? How can NASA know who benefits from the Moon 

to Mars effort? These questions were central to a number of the presentations and discussions 

throughout the workshop. Many groups feel left out of the conversation or do not understand 

how they are affected by broader exploration endeavors. A speaker from a disabled population 

described the benefits of including disabled people as astronauts and mission designers, while 

a speaker from an indigenous group advocated engagement with those populations. Appendix 
17

C has more detailed descriptions of all of the talks. There were also multiple calls for NASA to 

organize and engage with more citizen forums to help understand how people uninvolved with 

the space community view NASA and its plans.

Discussions on core values for exploration boiled down to a single question: How do we ensure 

that the values we bring to space are those we want as the basis of future exploration? While 

much of what is done in space will reflect what is done on Earth, participants identified the 

opportunity inherent in space exploration to establish new norms of behavior. Participants 

highlighted the need to avoid past mistakes and to be very clear about our values as we go 

about exploring in the future. One speaker gave a presentation on anti-colonialism, and the 

need to actively remove the colonial mindset as we set out to explore space, beyond just 

avoiding colonial narratives from discussions. Another participant suggested we alter how we 

view outer space resources, consider how to create a better society in space, and talk about 

space exploration using principle-based analogies and metaphors instead of historical ones.

Sustainability was another key issue raised by participants. Defining sustainability on the Moon 

is a complex challenge, as terrestrial discussions of sustainability, with questions of balancing 

conservation against inter-generational societal needs, do not necessarily apply to the Moon.

There were discussions on how to meet the needs on Earth for space-based resources while 

not devastating the environment of these other bodies. One participant pointed out that Earth is 

also a celestial body and questioned why it should be treated differently from the others. There 

was also the common question of what sustainability means, as its definition in policy 

documents can be vague or mean many different things. Participants also discussed the 

environmental impacts of space activities (including launches) on Earth.

Participants identified many operational challenges to prioritizing access to key sites, 

deconflicting activities, avoiding contamination, and maintaining heritage sites as important. For 

example, areas of scientific and resource interest on the Moon are limited. Some participants 

called for formal discussions on how to allocate and manage access to these high-value sites, 

including the rights of first arrivers and site preservation for subsequent visitors. A recent OTPS

analysis19 explored many of these practical concerns, which feed into broader ethical and 

societal questions.

There are cultural sensitivities surrounding certain payloads and activities on the Moon, which 

is viewed as sacred by many. This may affect perceptions of increased NASA activity on the 

Moon for resource utilization and other activities. Flying human remains aboard commercial 

lunar missions is a key emerging issue that highlights the challenges associated with diffuse 

19 Swiney, Gabriel and Amanda Hernandez. 2022. Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analysis. NASA 

Report ID 20220015973.
18

responsibilities for space activities, as well as how NASA’s operational decisions can have 

unintended consequences. Several in the lunar exploration and science community have 

expressed concern for the last few years about the possibility of human remains being sent to 

the Moon via a private mission, on a lander partially funded by NASA’s CLPS initiative. Remains 

placed on a NASA spacecraft that crashed into the Moon in 1998 caused concern among tribal 

nations, for example, prompting NASA to pledge not do it again without consultation.

20 One 

participant cited concerns over plans to manifest human remains on an upcoming commercial 

lunar mission, suggesting there is benefit to proactive action to address such concerns.

Observation 2

Participants mapped out many cultural and practical challenges to identifying and addressing 

ELSI within Artemis and Moon to Mars. 

One of the major cultural challenges identified was that social scientists, humanities scholars, 

and technical staff struggled to communicate effectively, at first due to the vastly differing 

languages of expertise at play. NASA staff lacked a framework to engage on ethical issues, and 

some social science and humanities scholars lacked understanding of how decisions are made 

internally at NASA, or externally across the Executive and Legislative branches of the U.S.

Government. Even within NASA the same word can mean different things depending on the 

context, so bringing together so many different fields inherently presents communication 

challenges. Cultural differences between the various fields led to occasional misunderstandings 

during the workshop. A recommendation from some participants was to increase crosspollination between the social scientists external to NASA and NASA Headquarters personnel.

Another cultural challenge identified by participants is that space practitioners at NASA and 

elsewhere can have a culture that prioritizes moving forward efficiently versus more careful 

reflection and engagement with others. Engineers and scientists can become narrowly focused 

achieving what is possible or meeting deadlines. Getting space practitioners to focus on longterm societal impacts, versus narrower scientific or technical concerns, requires an effort at 

cultural change. This issue is not unique to the space community; it reflects the broader 

American culture, which creates additional challenges to addressing it at the NASA level.

Participants cited funding as another major practical concern. It costs money for ethicists and 

social scientists to do their work and to train students but dedicating resources to study the 

ELSI of Artemis could draw funding away from the missions themselves. Some participants also 

noted that NASA can have many unfunded mandates, despite its large budgets. Funding new 

20 Volante, Enric. “Navajos Upset After Ashes Sent to Moon; NASA Apologizes.” The Spokesman-Review. 

January 15, 1998.
19

tasks like studying the ELSI must be balanced with Artemis mission needs. Many of the 

proposed solutions discussed in Observation 4 require some level of investment.

Another distinct practical challenge identified by participants is that many ELSI challenges are 

outside of NASA’s full control given international and commercial involvement in Artemis. 

Examples include who gets access to specific regions first, and whether those sites must be 

maintained for future generations. Other issues, such as the impact of frontier narratives and a 

colonial mindset, are cultural and might require societal transitions beyond what any one 

agency can control. Assignment of responsibility for issues like private mission regulation is 

another significant challenge, as different actors have their own areas of responsibility that may 

not always line up with the required authorities.

Additionally, there were questions about when is it too early to try to effect change, or when is it 

too late? Participants engaged in significant debates over when NASA should consider ethical 

issues as it plans out programs. Some called for ethical reflection earlier in program life cycles, 

when it is easier and less costly to identify and mitigate potential issues. This also would allow

the larger community to feel heard and valued. But reflecting on such issues earlier in a project 

takes time and can be difficult to do so accurately.

Finally, participants noted that pressing ethical issues may emerge unexpectedly, as a secondorder effect of past NASA decisions. To avoid this, proactive exploration of future ethical and 

societal issues is needed. The earlier discussion on human remains on private landers being 

partially funded by CLPS is a key example of unintended consequences: CLPS’s planners likely 

did not anticipate this being an issue, but it emerged as commercial plans came together. 

There likely will be other unintended consequences of decisions NASA makes today that could

affect the variety of ethical topic areas discussed in this report. 

Observation 3

A community of researchers working on ELSI is interested in ongoing engagement on these 

topics. 

OTPS brought together many disciplines – policy actors and scholars, philosophers, historians, 

sociologists, communications studies scholars, lawyers, engineers and scientists – that haven’t 

worked together before. The workshop integrated these disciplines, helping the participants 

understand each other’s perspectives. Several discussed creating their own non-NASA 

community to build on the discussions at this event. With all participants’ consent, NASA is 

sharing their contact information so they can do so if they so choose.

Observation 4

Participants discussed a range of policy options to address ethical implications of Artemis, 

some with heritage in other U.S. Government agencies and international sources. 
20

Throughout the workshop, but especially during a dedicated brainstorming session, 

participants were asked to think about solutions to the problems that they were identifying. We, 

the report writers, compiled those suggestions and grouped them into the 5 broad categories

listed below. It is important to note that we are not making recommendations, but merely 

identifying options that individual participants introduced. More detail on all of the suggested 

options can be found in Appendix D.

1. Policy: These options include involving ELSI expertise in existing policy 

structures such as federal advisory committees, creating incentives for 

responsible actions, and using public values to determine NASA goals.

2. Management: These options include ways in which NASA’s internal 

management can better focus on ethical/societal implications, from leadership 

clarity about the importance of ethical reflection, to recognizing societal impacts 

in systems engineering, to better utilizing the formal NASA Strategic Plan and 

Performance reporting processes to capture ethical issues, to budgeting to 

support ELSI capability.

3. Research: These options include ways to establish a capability for addressing 

research questions in this area, and for NASA to access this appropriately; and 

creating frameworks to help guide future activity, such as sustainability, 

stewardship, and equity. Participatory assessments with the public and other 

key stakeholders to create a map of public values was offered as a way to get 

relevant information to decision-makers.

4. Conversations: This entails engaging with the public, social science and 

humanities experts, and under-represented groups as well as those in technical 

fields. These conversations matter symbolically and practically as a way to 

exchange ideas and values between NASA and others and can indirectly shape 

management and policy.

5. Education: This involves ways to improve insight on ethical/societal issues for 

existing space practitioners, students, and the general public.

Participants suggested that models on which NASA and the space community could base their

ethics work include the Human Genome Project’s funding of ELSI research, and the 

Responsible Innovation work funded by the European Commission. Two speakers presented on 

the Human Genome and Responsible Innovation models, respectively, and summaries of their 

talks can be found in Appendix C.

Some of the policy options, detailed above in the Discussion of Policy, Management, and 

Research Options section, require no dedicated funding, an example being changing decision 

processes within NASA. Others, such as public consultations or dedicated research, would 

require budget allocations. Some combination of options might be of value but must be 
21

balanced against the needs of already budget-constrained programs and projects at NASA and 

elsewhere. Even policy options that require no direct funding likely would have indirect costs, 

as altering processes is rarely a smooth process.

Conclusion

The Artemis and Ethics workshop identified important issues for reflection as well as potential 

paths NASA and other space actors could take to address them. We highlighted key themes 

and lessons from the workshop and our analysis, though we are not making formal 

recommendations for action. We caution again that the views and options described in this

report represent those of the participants at the workshop, and do not necessarily reflect the 

views of NASA or the U.S. Government. 

In identifying ethical and societal implications, we mapped key ELSI topics to theoretical, 

process, and forecasting themes. Engineers and space practitioners could proactively consider 

this map as they formulate and implement their work for Artemis and the Moon to Mars effort.

The workshop revealed challenges to making research concepts accessible across disciplines 

as well as to NASA staff. NASA could consider creating synthesized frameworks for addressing 

these issues in the systems development and mission planning life cycle.

We summarized a range of options proposed by participants for more proactively addressing

these concerns, looking at potential conversations, research options, policy process options, 

and management process options. Some of these would require no funding; others would.

Some combination of these activities may be of value.

Regarding specific ethical issues identified at the workshop, participants raised the possibility of 

needing a framework for thinking about commercial norms of behavior in space, especially if 

capabilities are being fielded or developed with NASA funding.

Future Work

OTPS has forward work plans that will incorporate insights gained from this report. OTPS is 

formulating a new internal study to identify key policy decisions that will emerge leading up to

the Artemis III mission. OTPS will consider decisions with ethical and societal implications as 

part of that study and include discussion of those with NASA leadership. Separately, OTPS is

formulating ways to converse on these topics with NASA’s international partners. 

Research on these themes could also be expanded to other areas at NASA, although no 

additional activities have been formally decided on at this time. Collectively across its Mission 

Directorates, NASA deals with many policy issues that have ethical implications, including 
22

potential benefit/harm to different sectors of society.

21 By understanding how to reflect on these 

issues in making decisions on Artemis, NASA can avoid unintended consequences stemming 

from cultural perceptions of human exploration of the solar system and better focus on core 

values and benefits to society.

21 While not discussed at the workshop, NASA does track other areas facing ELSI 

challenges, with unintended societal impacts of mega-constellations being a recent topic 

of interest. Industry led development of what has now become mega-constellations of 

satellites in space, with some NASA encouragement in technology development. 

However, these mega-constellations have led to an impact on ground-based 

astronomers, who deal with optical interference from the satellites, and are concerned 

about the future of ground-based astronomy. The question of how to resolve this and who 

is responsible is complex and draws on many actors outside of NASA (NSF, university 

astronomers, private mega-constellation providers such as SpaceX, etc). Significant 

academic literature has already explored this topic, including: Venkatesan, A., Lowenthal, 

J., Prem, P. and Vidaurri, M., 2020. The impact of satellite constellations on space as an 

ancestral global commons. Nature Astronomy, 4(11), pp.1043-1048.
23

Appendix A: Participants 

The table below contains all of the workshop participants. Everyone engaged in the 

brainstorming sessions and discussions. For those who had an organizer, speaker, or support 

role, that is noted in the fourth column. We list the type of background that we were seeking in 

inviting the participant: Social Science and Humanities (SSH), Physical Science and 

Engineering (PSE), and Policy or Program Management (PPM). 

Attendee Affiliation Background Role 

Afreen Siddiqi MIT PSE Speaker

Akshay Prasad NASA SMAB PSE

Alissa Haddaji The Space Consortium SSH

Alyse Beauchemin NASA OTPS SSH Organizer

Amy Kaminski NASA STMD PPM

Avery Sen SenSound, ex-NOAA PPM

Becky Mcauley Rench NASA SMD PPM

Dan Hawk Oneida, Galaxyz LLC PPM Speaker

Daniel Vizuete FLASCO Ecuador SSH Speaker

Danielle Wood MIT SSH

Darshan Karwat Arizona State University (ASU) PSE

David Reinecke AAAS S&T Policy Fellow SSH

David Tomblin UMCP SSH

Ellen Gertsen NASA OTPS PPM

Erika Nesvold Just Space Alliance SSH Speaker

Eswaran Subramanian CMU PSE

Frank Tavares Independent Scholar SSH

Gabe Merrill NASA OTPS PSE Support

Gerald Sanders NASA STMD PSE

Grace Wusk NASA OTPS PPM Support

Jake Bleacher NASA ESDMD PPM

Janet Vertesi Princeton SSH Speaker

Jared Owens ASU SSH

Jay Falker NASA GSFC PSE

JS Johnson-Schwartz Wichita State SSH Speaker

Jessica O’Reilly Indiana University SSH Speaker

Jessy Kate Schingler Open Lunar PPM Speaker

Jonathan Coopersmith Texas A&M SSH

Jordan Bimm University of Chicago SSH

Julia Cline NASA LaRC PSE

Katie McBrayer NASA OTPS PSE Organizer
24

Attendee Affiliation Background Role 

Kelly Smith Clemson SSH

Ken Wright NASA OTPS PPM Support

Laura Delgado Lopez NASA OTPS PPM Support

Laura Ratliff GWU PSE

Linda Billings Consultant SSH Speaker

Mahmud Farooque ASU SSH Speaker

Mark Lupisella NASA PSE

Matt Wisnioski Virginia Tech SSH Speaker

Michelle Hanlon For All Moonkind SSH Speaker

Natalie Treviño Open University SSH Speaker

Nate McIntyre NASA ESDMD PPM

Nicole Piontek NASA SMAB PSE

Nujoud Merancy NASA ESDMD PPM

Parvathy Prem APL PSE Speaker

Rene von Schomberg KWTH, retired EC SSH Speaker

Ryan Watkins NASA SMD PPM

Shannon Conley James Madison SSH Speaker

Sheri Wells-Jensen Library of Congress SSH Speaker

Steve Garber NASA History SSH

Teasel Muir Harmony National Air and Space 

Museum

SSH Speaker

Tiffany Smith NASA Office of the Chief 

Engineer PPM

Zachary Pirtle NASA OTPS PPM Organizer
25

Appendix B: How NASA Formulated the Artemis 

and Ethics Workshop

Workshop scope: The event was called “Artemis and Ethics Workshop,” where 'Ethics' 

connotes broader research on ethical and societal implications. Using ‘Ethics’ in this expanded 

sense matches a large body of research within engineering ethics that contrasts micro-ethics 

with macro-ethics22. Micro-ethics focuses on individual’s decisions, such as whether to blow 

the whistle on harmful actions by others or to accept a certain level of personal risk. Macroethical issues (as elaborated by Herkert 200123) concern the impact of decisions more broadly

on society, and identifying ways to evaluate the consequences, inherent ethical characters, 

and intended goals underlying specific decisions.

24

Focus: OTPS focused the workshop design on studying and framing how to address the longterm ethical and societal aspects of Artemis. Such insights could support NASA’s vision for 

sustainable and responsible exploration, as robust and transparent ethical dialog helps enable 

long-term shared visions and public benefit. OTPS also sought to identify best practices for 

conducting such research, and to map key ethical and societal issues within Moon to Mars

efforts. OTPS staff studied key literature on space and society and on the ELSI research that 

the U.S. government has funded over the past decades.

25

For speakers and discussion participants, we solicited different views and rationales that we 

deemed relevant for thinking through the ethics of Moon to Mars. OTPS focused the content on 

Artemis and Moon to Mars, and as such excluded from analysis broader issues facing NASA: 

22 We do not provide a more detailed of ethics research in this report. Key resources for understanding 

schools of ethical reflection can involve consequentialist approaches (that evaluate the impact of decisions 

based on their consequences); deontological approaches of ethics (that evaluates actions on their own 

inherent method and merit); and virtue ethics approaches, that focus on the values and principles that 

feed into actions. For basic overviews of specific ethical schools, see the relevant entries in the Stanford 

Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 

Recent overviews of ethics research in the area of technology and engineering include: Michelfelder, D. 

and Doorn, N., 2021. The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of engineering. Routledge-Taylor & 

Francis Group. Steen, M. 2023. Ethics for People Who Work in Tech. CRC Press. Vallor, S., 2016. 

Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford University Press.

23 Herkert, J.R., 2001. Future directions in engineering ethics research: Microethics, macroethics and the 

role of professional societies. Science and engineering ethics, 7, pp.403-414. Herkert’s work on macroethics is key for how we approached defining the topic. 

24 There is also a large body of research focused on technology assessment and responsible innovation, 

including the Journal of Responsible Innovation. This literature stream captures much of the ‘societal 

implications’ research that also helped inform the workshop design. Owen, R. and Pansera, M., 2019. 

Responsible innovation and responsible research and innovation (pp. 26-48). Edward Elgar Publishing.

25 Note that, per footnote 5, the word ‘implication’ here was not meant to imply that space activities would 

occur regardless of ethical reflection or consideration.
26

For example, we did not focus on the International Space Station or other activities in Low 

Earth Orbit. OTPS also tried to focus on broader ethical and societal implications and did not 

solicit presentations on specific issues such as safety and its associated ethical impacts. Given 

that NASA has other organizations responsible for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility 

(DEIA), OTPS did not solicit dedicated DEIA presentations. DEIA issues of course emerged in 

discussion from the workshop, given their importance for societal impact26.

OTPS invited 55 participants representing a diverse range of disciplines, many of whom did not 

know each other in advance, with the idea of exploring the many facets of how NASA should 

consider future ethical and societal implications. Given past challenges to infusing ethical and 

societal impacts research into practice,

27 we invited 20 civil servants from a variety of roles 

inside of NASA, asking them to engage from their personal perspectives. These included earlycareer staff as well as representatives from key Mission Directorates at NASA Headquarters, 

notably the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD), Space 

Technology Mission Directorate (STMD), and Science Mission Directorate (SMD). The 

rationale was that this would help identify new viewpoints or possible actions that could be 

considered by NASA.

OTPS made the decision to focus on U.S. domestic ELSI – which cut across multiple disciplines 

and lack consensus remedies – instead of pursuing a more globally diverse portfolio and 

approach. While there were a few international speakers with expertise on responsible 

innovation and international development, the U.S. focus was a known gap. Work done by 

other countries under the umbrella of ‘responsible research and innovation’ was used as a 

reference point.

28 Funding was a constraint on making the workshop more international in 

scope: Simply getting U.S. thinkers across a variety of disciplines was a significant challenge, 

and more international participants would have magnified that. The domestic focus nonetheless 

allowed for a fruitful discussion.

OTPS also recognized that the workshop would not address all possible criticisms of Artemis 

and Moon to Mars; it was not intended as a comprehensive examination of the ELSI of Artemis. 

Given the key research question of how to consider the ELSI of Artemis and Moon to Mars, our 

26 For readers interested in DEIA as a topic, see NASA 2022. NASA Strategic Plan for Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion and Accessibility: Fiscal Years 2022-2026. Link.

27 Some have argued that few practitioners have taken the results of ethical and societal impacts research 

into practical account. It is unclear whether this is due to insufficient resources or due to the challenge of 

doing practically-relevant ethical research. See Sullivan, M., 2018. The Expansion of Science Policy in the 

United States in Three Cases: rDNA Research, The Human Genome Project, and the National 

Nanotechnology Initiative (Doctoral dissertation).

28 The European Commission had a significant research program on responsible innovation. We invited René

von Schomberg to speak on this at the workshop. More related details can be found here: Von Schomberg, 

R., 2019. Why responsible innovation? An international handbook on responsible innovation (pp. 12-32). 

Edward Elgar Publishing; Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. and Macnaghten, P., 2013. Developing a framework for 

responsible innovation. Research policy, 42(9), pp.1568-1580.
27

primary focus was on processes and identification of possible issues. It was understood that 

NASA cannot unilaterally resolve every concern, as international law and other spacefaring 

nations must be included. Rather, NASA seeks to listen and engage with traditional and nontraditional stakeholders. Some workshop participants voiced specific criticisms of the Artemis 

Accords, focusing on the implications for future property rights in the broader solar system. 

This workshop does not mean to imply that NASA would pursue updating the Accords.

Brainstorming and Discussion Session Formulation 

We sought to take advantage of the diverse viewpoints at the event through extended 

discussions and brainstorming sessions. The objective of these sessions, which included NASA 

staff, was to understand how NASA should consider ethical and societal issues as it pursues 

Artemis and Moon to Mars missions.

In the first brainstorming session, we asked participants to use sticky notes to highlight ELSI of 

Artemis that they felt were important or that merited deeper conversation at the at the 

workshop. This approach was seen as having heuristic value in that it could provide a quick 

map of ethical perspectives and issues from across the varied disciplines. Participants were 

able to place stickers on notes whose ideas they found salient or agreed with. Results from this 

session are discussed in Appendix E.

In the second brainstorming session, we had groups conduct breakout discussions on four 

topics that were prominent in the literature: A) environmental issues, B) responsibility for longterm ethical decisions; C) the role of frontier narratives and colonialism; and D) the ethics 

surrounding the opportunity costs of human spaceflight vs. other NASA activities. The results of 

this breakout session informed subsequent discussions on potential policy options.

The third brainstorming session focused on an issue that would create tension between 

practitioners on one hand and theoretical science and science scholars on the other. 

Specifically, this discussion examined the practicality of addressing deeper societal and ethical 

issues and also opportunities for considering these issues.

The fourth and fifth sessions followed up on key themes that emerged in the earlier discussions, 

most of which are captured in Appendix C. We intentionally built flexibility into these sessions to 

accommodate the needs of participants and give them time to raise issues that might not have 

occurred to us while planning. 

The next two Appendices outline the results of these brainstorming sessions and detail the key 

ethical and societal issues that were raised, as well as potential policy and management 

responses.
28

Appendix C: Summary of Presentations and 

Discussions

The following summaries capture the discussions at the workshop, focusing on the key themes 

of each. For more details on the personal perspectives of the speakers, we recommend 

contacting them directly. The full workshop schedule can be found in Appendix F.

Historical context and how to consider ethical issues

Several workshop presentations provided historical context for studying ethical and societal 

issues. Shannon Conley, an associate professor in the Social Context of Science and 

Technology at the James Madison University, provided an overview of past U.S. government 

efforts to study ethical and societal aspects of science, focusing on the Human Genome 

Project, which was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of 

Energy. This program dedicated research funding to the Ethical, Legal, and Societal 

Implications (ELSI) Research Program. Several ELSI research areas were pursued – such as 

privacy issues tied to gene sequencing – engaging diverse scholars, stakeholders, and 

informed practitioners, and helping to establish public trust in genetic research. Conley 

acknowledged criticisms that the ELSI initiative lacked ties to decision-makers and was at times 

insufficiently critical.

29 Conley suggested that stronger connections between NASA and broader 

social science communities could help avoid the pitfalls of past ELSI research. 

Matt Wisnioski, a historian at Virginia Tech, discussed the challenges of addressing cultural 

changes across generations. He provided insights into how engineers from the 1960s grappled 

with greater ethical concerns and awareness. Interest in these concerns diminished over time, 

despite a lack of change in engineering practice, he noted. Recent years have seen newfound 

interest among engineers, especially related to topics such as artificial intelligence. This 

historical perspective highlights the importance of continuous reflection on ethical 

considerations in the context of lunar and Mars exploration, as well as the necessity for 

international collaboration to ensure responsible and sustainable development in outer space.

29 This criticism of the Human Genome Project may have interesting implications for any NASA efforts to explore the 

ethical and societal implications of Artemis. Given that many future ethical decisions about Moon to Mars are outside 

the scope of NASA’s decision authority alone, if NASA were to proactively think about ethical and societal impacts, to 

what extent does it need to be sharing this information with other decision makers, both in the commercial sector as 

well as internationally? What feedback loops need to exist across multiple levels of decision-making?
29

René von Schomberg, former civil servant, philosopher, and senior research fellow at the Kate 

Hamburger Kolleg, RWTH Aachen University, and a retired civil servant from the European 

Commission, presented on how ethical considerations inform responsible state, market, and 

research innovation behaviors. Within responsible state behavior, von Schomberg said, there 

are questions about overall state/societal benefits, international collaboration, and responsible 

conduct. Within responsible market behavior, there are questions related to safety, efficacy, 

quality, competitiveness and macro-economic advantage, he said. Within responsible research 

and innovation, von Schomberg said there are questions regarding acceptability, sustainability, 

social desirability and transparency. He concluded by making a case for anticipatory 

governance.

In terms of public engagement, science policy scholar Mahmud Farooque of Arizona State 

University and engineering and society scholar David Tomblin of the University of Maryland, 

College Park, emphasized a reflective approach to public participation in science and 

technology. Their talk highlighted the importance and value of including the public in science 

and technology planning discussions and suggested that participatory technology assessments 

be employed as a means of brokering this engagement. They discussed recent efforts in 

participatory technology assessment, which is a structured approach for having members of 

the public learn about and provide feedback about science and technology, helping to 

proactively inform future decisions.

The philosopher Kelly Smith, professor at Clemson University, provided insight into framing bigpicture questions while engaging with technical experts to encourage reflection. For example, 

Smith described the importance of ethical sensitivity and where it may be lacking at NASA. He 

suggested that NASA either create more partnerships with social scientists to sustain the 

discussion on ethics or set aside resources to discuss these issues internally through an ethics 

office or with an ethics officer.

Jayme S. Johnson-Schwartz, philosopher at Wichita State University, discussed bringing nontraditional voices into conversations about space ethics. Along with Erika Nesvold and Linda 

Billings, Johnson-Schwartz was co-editor of the book “Reclaiming Space: progressive and 

multicultural visions of space exploration”. She noted how chapter authors in that book brought

forward perspectives from historically underrepresented groups such as black Americans, 

along with science fiction authors, artists, scientists, and the humanities. She discussed how 

different ways of thinking, at times about uncomfortable topics, are helpful for more deeply 

engaging on ethical issues.

Context on space policy, law, and NASA

Jessica O'Reilly, associate professor of international studies at Indiana University, provided an 

overview of the Antarctic Treaty, which governs interactions among multiple international 
30

groups in Antarctica. Created in the 1960s, this consensus-based approach involves managing 

and controlling activities on the continent. Workshop participants drew similarities between the 

Antarctic Treaty and discussions surrounding lunar activities. Some attendees suggested that 

the consensus-based nature of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space 

(COPUOS) makes it unlikely in the short-term that significant changes will be made to lunar 

provisions in the Outer Space Treaty.

Michelle Hanlon, co-founder and president of For All Moonkind, discussed and identified gaps 

in space law relevant to the Moon, with a particular focus on how ethical considerations can 

help fill gaps in space law. She provided an overview of the Outer Space Treaty, the major 

international treaty that governs behavior in space. Hanlon believes that the Moon will serve as 

a benchmark for all future space mining activity and said common ethical values are needed to 

adjudicate competing interests in space exploration. Hanlon also said the idea of a global 

commons might be difficult to apply to the Moon, as it invokes language tied to the Common 

Heritage of Mankind from the Law of the Sea Treaty that could potentially restrict activities on 

the Moon. Some attendees suggested the need to develop different concepts and approaches 

to address environmental issues and resource sharing in the lunar context.

Although it was never ratified by the U.S., the Moon Treaty is often cited as a key milestone in 

space policy discussions. Teasel Muir-Harmony, curator of the Apollo Collection at the National 

Air and Space Museum, provided an overview of this 1960s effort to develop additional 

guidelines and principles for lunar activities. The U.S. was involved in negotiating the treaty, but 

Congress declined to ratify it due in part to private sector disagreements with some of its 

provisions. The Moon Treaty diverges from the Outer Space Treaty in barring private property 

ownership on the Moon, for example. Hanlon noted that while the Outer Space Treaty is said to 

be more permissive regarding property ownership, she believes it affirms that lunar activities 

must be done for the benefit of all humankind. Legal options exist to allow private activities on 

the Moon, provided it is conducted for peaceful purposes as required by the Outer Space 

Treaty.

Understanding how NASA operates is also critical for understanding how policy objectives 

might incorporate ELSI considerations. The talk of Janet Vertesi, associate professor of 

sociology at Princeton University provided insights about NASA that could help shape how the 

Agency considers societal and ethical issues. Her research on two different NASA missions, 

one to Mars and the other to Jupiter, revealed how the culture of each team was unique based 

on the personalities involved and the institutions they represented. Vertesi argued that NASA, 

in many ways, is a confederation of many diverse groups, without one-size-fits-all solutions or 

thought processes for decision-making. Calls for specific actions could be better served by 

identifying particular decision-makers within NASA who can consider a specific topic.
31

Vertesi also emphasized the importance of considering the functioning of teams and their 

personal feelings and thought processes to ensure good cohesion and positive outcomes. She 

argued that the way individual teams interpret ethical issues will depend significantly on their 

societal context and local culture. Approaches to dealing with ethical issues need to be 

sensitive to this context. 

Significant Ethical and Societal Implications 

Parvathy Prem, planetary scientist and staff at the Applied Physics Laboratory of the Johns 

Hopkins University, emphasized the importance of including experts in societal and ethical 

issues within the decision-making process. Her talk overviewed a report from the Inclusive 

Lunar Exploration workshop report, which was part of NASA SMD’s Lunar Surface Science 

Workshop series.

30 The report calls for a deeper exploration of how to incorporate ethical 

considerations in the context of NASA's decision-making processes. Prem also provided an 

overview of key ethical issues touched on in the report, many of which were considered during 

the workshop and are discussed later. These included how major scientific unknowns, such as 

environmental impact from landings, can have important ethical implications. She called for 

candid conversations about why we engage in space exploration, noting that invocation of 

public interest as a rationale for space exploration should come with deeper long-term critical 

thinking about the goals for space exploration.

Another discussion centered on environmental issues and the broader challenge of adapting 

Earth-based policy drivers and solutions to the Moon and other future contexts. As Afreen 

Siddiqi, research scientist in the department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, pointed 

out in her talk, concepts such as sustainability on Earth are about serving human needs and 

balancing them across multiple generations in a world where resource constraints make it 

difficult to support a high quality of life both today and in the future. She said the idea of 

conservation could be difficult to justify in the lunar context. Siddiqi also highlighted the 

challenge posed by the concept of planetary boundaries, which is frequently used in Earthfocused sustainability literature: Studying interactions and movement across these boundaries, 

such as from the lunar surface to cislunar space, could help to explore the spheres of 

environmental interaction and influences. She also discussed how the unique constraints of the 

lunar night and day cycles could present resource sharing challenges. For example, there are 

few locations with near-constant sunlight near the lunar South Pole, and many missions may be 

competing for one of those rare spots. Beyond Siddiqi’s work, there have been recent calls for 

exploring environmental aspects of Moon to Mars exploration, including the National 

30 Parvathy Prem and Kristen Bennett, 2022. Report: Inclusive Lunar Exploration: Lunar Surface Science 

Workshop Session 13. https://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/lssw/downloads/LSSW13_final.pdf
32

Academies’ most recent Planetary Science Decadal Survey, which said: “NASA would benefit 

from convening a team of experts to review the ethics of planetary ISRU and determine optimal 

plans and processes to ensure sustainable and responsible resource utilization. Humans are 

the trustees of our planetary environments for future generations.”

31

The discussion on environmental responsibility on the lunar surface highlighted the importance 

of stewardship. Although the term has not yet gained significant traction, the idea of being good 

stewards of lunar resources and terrain merits further consideration. Jessy Kate Schingler,

researcher and advisor at the Open Lunar Foundation, shared her organization's experiment in 

creating a property trust for lunar resources. The experiment involves notionally purchasing 

lunar regolith and placing it into a legally enforceable trust, ensuring long-term protection of 

those resources. To guide the foundation's decision-making, Schingler established a 

participatory body of expert advisors from diverse backgrounds, including historians and 

representatives from indigenous groups. This approach promotes broader input on significant 

issues.

Narratives that once were used to justify space exploration emerged from problematic colonial 

histories. Natalie Treviño, postdoctoral researcher at the Open University specializing in 

decolonial theory, emphasized the importance of understanding historical injustices and 

ensuring that the underlying values and rationale for space exploration are honest and wellfounded to prevent perpetuating past injustices. Treviño specifically addressed the danger of 

extending the harm of coloniality—the longstanding power relations resulting from 

colonialism—to space. She described how past motivations for Western exploration were 

rooted in political and economic interests, with no regard for the negative consequences to the 

environment and certain groups of people. In conclusion, she drew parallels between the 

Artemis initiative and the Artemis Accords, suggesting that the latter promote “colonialist 

values under a peaceful narrative” in their effort to create a lunar economy.

Daniel Vizuete, research associate at the CTS Lab of FLASCO Ecuador with expertise in 

political sociology and biotechnical engineering, summarized the current scope of space 

activities in Latin America, claiming the region’s space spending is declining compared to 

African countries and that Latin America has just 135 satellites, the majority belonging to just 

four countries. No Latin American countries have an independent human spaceflight capability. 

He also noted how some scholarship in international relations has discussed the negative 

power dynamics associated with developing countries trying to closely follow industrialized

31 National Academies. 2022. “Chapter 19: Human Exploration.” In Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal 

Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2033 [Prepublication Copy – Subject to Further 

Editorial Correction]. National Academies Press: Washington DC.: pg. 19-6.
33

countries. He also discussed the pros and cons for Latin American countries of embracing the 

Artemis Accords. He explored how a society’s high-level visions for what it wants out of space 

can shape its engineering activities and described how Latin America has tried to create its 

own space visions. Vizuete argued that growing future exploration efforts in Latin America 

should include continued reflection on a unique Latin American vision for space and 

recommended against Latin American countries joining the Accords.

Erika Nesvold, astrophysicist and co-founder of the JustSpace Alliance, said NASA must 

balance its relationship with the profit-driven commercial sector with its mandate to benefit “all 

[humanity]”. She also said there can be a tension between benefitting all humanity and 

advancing the U.S.’s strategic interests, including its space capabilities. Nesvold cited the 

creation of the Artemis Accords outside the UN legal system as evidence of the U.S.’s 

ambiguous perception of itself as either a leader or partner in spaceflight. She asserted that it 

cannot be both in such an endeavor, while others disagreed, leading to a discussion in the 

Q&A period. The U.S., Nesvold said, must answer two fundamental questions: 1) Why is 

American leadership a benefit for all humanity?; and 2) How can the U.S. balance competing 

commercial, civil, and international space interests?

Another key ethical issue is opportunity costs. Linda Billings, a communications scholar and 

consultant, challenged the value of multi-billion-dollar space missions when the money could be 

spent elsewhere to benefit humanity. Billings called for more participatory technology 

assessments and studies on the impact of spaceflight on the human condition and how human 

spaceflight can or should be justified. She also criticized the influence of commercial 

companies in determining how civil spaceflight is implemented.

Daniel Hawk, a space activist and member of the Oneida Tribal Nation, and who co-founded 

Galxyz LLC, a science-based educational tools company, gave a wide-ranging talk about 

indigenous peoples in the United States and their engagement with space exploration. For 

space exploration to be transformative for people on Earth, indigenous people must be active 

and engaged, Hawk said. Hawk said some space education and outreach efforts lack 

adequate funding or technical rigor to meaningfully engage indigenous tribes. He highlighted 

NASA's historical lack of engagement with certain indigenous groups and cited his ongoing 

efforts to establish a NASA Office of Tribal Affairs as a possible way to support indigenous 

space capabilities.

32

32 Part of Hawk’s call for a coordination office on Tribal affairs for space was claimed as a way to help with 

ITAR issues that would allow tribes to communicate across national boundaries, which is a topic Hawk has 

worked on. He also laid out principles for more deeply considering due regard across space actors. 
34

Hawk also offered thoughts on three ethical and societal implications of Moon to Mars 

exploration. First, he noted the major concern and perceived harm generated by NASA’s 1998 

Lunar Prospector mission, which crashed into the lunar surface with human remains on board. 

This offended some indigenous nations for whom the Moon holds spiritual significance.

Second, he noted how the naming conventions for many lunar geographic features ignore 

names that indigenous peoples have created for the surface of the Moon. Lastly, he offered 

that non-traditional and holistic ways of thinking among Tribal Nations could inform complex 

future exploration requirements, particularly with respect to territorial rights and environmental 

impact33.

As an academic expert on disability and space, Sheri Wells-Jensen—the 2023 Baruch S. 

Blumberg NASA/Library of Congress Chair in Astrobiology, Exploration, and Scientific 

Innovation—spoke about the ethical and practical necessity to reconsider the definition of “the 

right stuff” for future astronauts. She offered insight into possible best practices for including 

populations with disabilities in spaceflight and into the ethical implications of astronauts 

becoming disabled during spaceflight. Wells-Jensen challenged the audience to consider that 

including disabled populations in space exploration is not a purely medical issue but also an 

engineering, policy, budgetary and moral issue. She argued that various research, engineering, 

and programmatic communities have a role to play. She also said including disabled people in 

space missions should be viewed not as a risk, but rather as a means of risk mitigation and 

accessibility for astronauts, as any astronaut could be injured on a mission and become 

disabled. Wells-Jensen stressed the need for more research on standards for accessibility in 

spaceflight that could be shared at conferences or popular space events like launches. She 

argued that not embracing disabled astronauts in humanity’s long-term future on the Moon and 

Mars would be a moral failing. Lastly, Wells-Jensen suggested that NASA could employ access 

officers to ensure access to space missions for the disabled.

Challenges and opportunities for considering ethical and societal issues

The breakout sessions yielded useful discussions about specific challenges to considering

societal and ethical issues in space exploration.

Some participants offered ideas to help address these challenges. Avery Sen, a former staffer 

at a science-focused federal agency and now in the private sector, noted that agencies spend 

significant resources creating strategic plans and then assessing performance against those 

33 Although not discussed at the workshop, the authors note that one forum for additional conversation may 

be through NASA’s Tribal Consultation and Coordination, which is described here: Link. 
35

plans.

34 This process could be influenced through more structured public input and review, 

which might help in prioritizing attention to the ethical and societal implications of Artemis. 

Others highlighted the potential benefit of policy shifts such as incorporating ethical 

considerations into civil servant performance plans and training as well as into acquisition 

decisions.

The workshop explored the topic of distributed responsibility for key ethical issues in space 

exploration. Several participants noted that NASA, as a civil space agency, does not have 

regulatory authority over private activity in space but does manage its own missions, including 

those that rely on commercial services.35

Some participants described the ambiguity surrounding the regulatory and ethical responsibility 

for private payloads on the Moon, especially when those payloads are on NASA-funded CLPS

deliveries. One participant at the workshop said they discussed concern about privately 

manifested payloads of human remains alongside CLPS deliveries with NASA staff and with a 

relevant CLPS provider. It was reported that while both were sympathetic, it appeared that 

neither group felt they had the authority to take action to remove human remains from the 

mission manifests. This raises the question of who is responsible for private sector activities 

carried out in conjunction with NASA’s Artemis work. Participants discussed how NASA is not a 

regulatory agency, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s licensing authority in space is 

limited to launch and re-entry vehicles. This apparent lack of regulatory authority – and perhaps

by extension ethical responsibility – for lunar activities was anathema to some workshop 

participants given NASA’s role as the primary source of funding for CLPS missions. Some felt 

that NASA should be prepared to deal with these kinds of concerns regardless of what 

happens with current proposals to fly human remains on CLPS missions. Workshop 

participants said NASA has the technical expertise and public interest necessary to have a 

holistic vision of the Moon and Mars' future. Consequently, despite lacking regulatory authority, 

some argued NASA should be cognizant of its de-facto ethical responsibility as an orchestrator 

of the emerging lunar economy.

Both consultant Linda Billings and JS Johnson-Schwartz advocated participatory technology 

assessment approaches to obtain more structured public input.

36 Rene von Schomberg said 

34 NASA’s formal strategic plan is NASA 2022. NASA Strategic Plan 2022. Link. Its performance 

reporting plan is NASA 2023. FY2024 Volume of Integrated Performance. Link. Both activities 

are required by the Government Performance Reporting Act (GPRA). 

35 Many processes shape and influence what missions NASA takes on and how it implements 

them ranging from Congressional legislation, Executive direction, federal advisory councils, and 

structured studies such as the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine’s 

Decadal Surveys for science. 

36 A reference for participatory technology assessment is: Kaplan, L.R., Farooque, M., Sarewitz, 

D. and Tomblin, D., 2021. Designing participatory technology assessments: a reflexive method 
36

the European Union utilizes participatory approaches, among others, in its responsible 

innovation framework. In this context, the European Union employs a variety of research 

methods and provides funds to create knowledge that can help shape future science and 

technology outcomes.

Considering funding for ethical and societal implications research

There was an initial discussion on funding, with some speakers who have written on these 

societal and ethical topics voicing concerns about funding and the potential to grow a 

community that works in this area. Other participants suggested that if sufficient prestige were 

granted by universities for social scientists to serve on unfunded advisory groups (such as the 

NAC), then social scientists might have the support to share their research in ways that could 

impact policy and technical planning. However, the viability of encouraging social science 

engagement with practitioners remained uncertain. Social science and humanities funding tied 

to space and society research is much less established than traditional space science fields

themselves. 

Some participants suggested targeting existing funding opportunities, such as research 

conference grants that could fund individual ELSI workshops. Some participants said that other 

potential funding opportunities could be found in Research Opportunities in Space and Earth 

Sciences (ROSES) solicitations, which are standard annual calls for specific research.

René von Schomberg mentioned that the European Union has, at times, dedicated a 

percentage of total funding for a particular scientific or technological area to societal and 

ethical issues. Shannon Conley noted how the Human Genome Project spent three percent of 

its funding on ELSI-related work. While many suggested that NASA should invest more money 

on ELSI research, Janet Vertesi noted that, despite seemingly large budgets, the Agency has 

many unfunded mandates that are significant and challenging to accommodate. She said 

NASA constantly receives requests from various parts of the space community and elsewhere 

for funding and support. Unfunded mandates and the vagaries of long-term planning often 

make it challenging to address ethical concerns that arise during missions. 

for advancing the public role in science policy decision-making. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 171, 

120974. The commentators also said they were reacting to some NASA-funded cooperative work, including: 

Tomblin, D., Pirtle, Z., Farooque, M., Sittenfeld, D., Mahoney, E., Worthington, R., Gano, G., Gates, M., Bennett, I., 

Kessler, J. and Kaminski, A., 2017. Integrating public deliberation into engineering systems: Participatory technology 

assessment of NASA’s Asteroid Redirect Mission. Astropolitics, 15(2), pp.141-166.
37

The discussion also touched on the potential ELSI of NASA’s Commercial LEO Destinations 

(CLD) private space station development effort, particularly with respect to the role of disabled 

astronauts in space.

How to justify and show the benefit of NASA

An unanticipated brainstorming topic explored the justification for human exploration, including 

what level of empirical data and understanding would be sufficient for validation. This 

discussion emerged from Linda Billings' critique of human spaceflight, in which she argued that 

human exploration is not worth the opportunity cost and has not been justified by empirical 

data that proves its benefits to humanity. There was a broad discussion of whether research 

has definitively demonstrated the value of pursuing space exploration, but many claimed that 

there were only partial, incomplete, and competing justifications for why space exploration 

should be pursued37. 

A follow up discussion emerged on what an acceptable justification for human space 

exploration should be. It began when a space scientist said that they are often questioned on 

why NASA does space exploration with humans in addition to robotic exploration. Many whom 

he speaks to feel that insufficient scientific research is performed on human spaceflight 

missions. The scientist said his justifications often fall short with scientific audiences, and asked 

Linda Billings what she believes would be sufficient. Billings suggested participatory technology 

assessment could begin to provide an answer. NASA experimented with participatory 

technology assessment in 2014,

38 allowing members of the public to learn about competing 

goals for space mission planning and to then weigh in on the topic. 

This breakout session ended up focusing on a variety of empirical techniques that could be 

developed to explore the impacts of NASA’s activities on society. Some participants noted that 

there are already many existing legislative mandates for continuing human exploration, which

arguably makes NASA’s reflection on this issue irrelevant. Others noted that justifying human 

spaceflight might require high-level deliberations weighing the opportunity costs of that activity

against other priorities, possibly across the entire U.S. federal budget.

37 Relevant resources here also include: Johnson-Schwartz, J.S., 2017. Myth-free space advocacy part I—

The myth of innate exploratory and migratory urges. Acta Astronautica, 137, pp.450-460. Johnson-Schwartz, 

J.S. 2017. Myth-free space advocacy Part II: the myth of the space frontier. Astropolitics, 15(2), pp.167-184.

Billings, L., 2006. How shall we live in space? Culture, law and ethics in spacefaring society. Space Policy, 

22(4), pp.249-255.

38 Bertrand, P., Pirtle, Z. and Tomblin, D., 2017. Participatory technology assessment for Mars mission 

planning: Public values and rationales. Space Policy, 42, pp.41-53.
38

Concluding Themes

The Artemis and Ethics workshop brought together a diverse group of experts, fostering 

insightful discussions on the societal and ethical implications of NASA's Moon to Mars effort. 

The event focused on addressing interdisciplinary challenges, incorporating various 

perspectives, and identifying ways to influence future decisions through meaningful reflection.

The conversations explored the complexities of applying Earth-based environmental concepts 

to lunar contexts, as well as the importance of considering local cultural and institutional factors 

in addressing ethical issues. By engaging scholars and practitioners alike, the workshop 

facilitated a meaningful exchange of ideas and highlighted the importance of continued 

reflection and dialogue on these critical topics.

One workshop participant cited claims that the Artemis Accords promote a view of lunar 

property that may encourage significant privatization and propagate a capitalist system in 

space. Some view this as a desirable future, whereas critics say that this can enable repetition 

of missteps that can occur when past economic systems were not regulated. NASA staff noted 

that the Agency is aware of these criticisms and that the workshop's purpose was not to 

adjudicate specific ethical questions but rather to explore how NASA should consider societal 

and ethical implications in broader contexts. Multiple attendees emphasized that these issues 

are much broader than NASA and the U.S. government, requiring international collaboration 

and awareness.

As the workshop continued, participants delved into the long-term policy issues and ethical 

considerations surrounding lunar and Mars exploration. NASA's architecture campaign 

segment of “Sustained Lunar Evolution” was cited as a critical aspect of the Agency's future 

technical planning.

39 Although ELSI are not currently a major priority, some argued that NASA 

will need to adapt its approach to the evolving ethical landscape. This includes considering 

ethical issues in Earth-based operations and LEO activities.

Numerous speakers cited a need for clarity in the fundamental values guiding exploration and 

related activities. Anti-colonialist scholar Natalie Treviño, along with others, emphasized the 

importance of understanding the reasons behind exploration and the actions taken in pursuit of 

those goals. Others affirmed that the broad principles and values underlying the Artemis 

program may help shape a more positive future for space exploration and said continuing to 

refine those values is desirable.

39 NASA’s formal Moon to Mars architecture planning process breaks down future space activities into 

campaign segments. For more details, see: https://www.nasa.gov/MoonToMarsArchitecture/
39

Appendix D: Management and Policy Process 

Approaches for How NASA Should Consider 

Ethical and Societal Aspects of Artemis

Over the course of the workshop, participants were encouraged to not only discuss ethical 

concerns but also to think about what options might be available to address those concerns. 

Many of the suggestions were about how to create systemic change within NASA to make 

these sorts of discussions a natural part of the process. Others were about specific 

engagement opportunities for the spaceflight community and ELSI scholars. Some were 

suggestions for how to handle specific problems. The following summarizes the suggestions 

made during the course of the workshop. As iterated in the report’s main body, these reflect 

the suggestions of individuals and do not represent views or a commitment by NASA. 

Table 3: Definition of policy options available to address ELSI, as proposed by workshop attendees

 Description 

Research This involves new efforts that require critical thinking and evaluation.

Conversation 

Bringing different groups into the conversation can change individual

perspectives and shape broader perspectives. Conversations are mapped

separately from Management considerations or other Policy actions, 

because they push and shape the perspectives of all those involved.

Education 

This involves specific strands of NASA work that involve training students or 

the existing workforce. Educational efforts can include helping people learn 

to perceive and care about ethical aspects and perspectives.

Policy process 

This involves how NASA leadership makes decisions and provides input 

into future programs and perspectives.

Management 

Process 

This deals with the perspectives that NASA managers and systems 

engineers must consider as they guide mission ideas from early formulation

into actual flight activities. This can also involve a specific decision that cuts 

across policy, management and research contexts.
40

This coding led to the one-page summary of analysis that can be seen in Table 2 in main body of the report. Table 4 is the overall 

summary of all written comments and many noted comments from conversation. 

Table 4: Coding applied to all noted action item options from the workshop event; light editing for clarity performed.

Category Sub-Category Policy option 

Conversation 

Convening 

Mechanism

Convene conversation using NASA funding opportunities: topical workshops, symposia, and 

conferences (TWSCs)

Conversation 

Convening 

Mechanism

Invite non-traditional attendees to conferences (directed invites are powerful). Provide travel 

grants to each other’s conferences, keynote talks, etc. 

Conversation Inter-disciplinary Encourage more frequent conversations between scientists and ethicists

Conversation Inter-disciplinary Communicate the value proposition of integrating social scientists (build trust)

Conversation Inter-disciplinary Talk directly with the science and engineering community to hear what issues concern them 

(workshops)

Conversation International Continue conversations with international partners

Conversation Intra-NASA Engage high level officials in these conversations

Conversation Intra-NASA Establish continuity between administrations via email list or similar so progress is not lost every 

4-8 years

Conversation Public and Science Continue conversations on science and ethics with the public

Education Outside NASA Train scientists and engineers in social studies/science in school (Give engineers the 

frameworks and case studies to realize their sociological impacts)

Education 

Practitioner- and 

Student-focused Train scientists in ethics and ethicists in science/engineering

Education 

Practitioner- and 

Student-focused

Use case studies to educate and invoke emotional reasons to care about ethics (Study what is 

so well done in the Normalization of Deviance/Columbia Accident trainings—these are very 

impactful on NASA employees)

Education 

Practitioner- and 

Student-focused Educate practitioners and students about collective ethics, group outcomes
41

Category Sub-Category Policy option 

Education 

PractitionerfocusedMake training resources via SATERN emotionally engaging, like the Challenger or Institutional 

Silence programs

Education 

PractitionerfocusedTeach how to bring ethics/social sciences in from the start as an engineering consideration

(e.g., design solar panel to be "efficient" or manage environmental footprint)

Education Student-focused Institute early career in-house training/internships

Education Student-focused Create academic training for social scientists, science, technology, and society scholars for jobs 

that aren't academic

Management 

Accountability, 

Reporting Allow and encourage public reporting on ethical considerations

Management Budget Devote a small percentage of budget to finance a charter on social/ethical issues

Management Contractual Integrate ethics/social sciences into contractual arrangements

Management 

Internal Agency 

Changes

Institute ethics-related evaluations for NASA workforce, including SES staff, with involvement of 

stakeholders

Management 

Internal Agency 

Changes Institute ethics-related performance review grading metrics for staff

Management Leadership Support champions, insiders within NASA who advocate for this kind of work 

Management Leadership Increase awareness of science and engineering codes of ethics

Management Leadership Integrate ethical discourse with stakeholders into strategic planning

Management Reporting, Strategy Take ethical considerations seriously in strategic planning and program budgeting

Management Staffing Hiring: Make positions available for social scientists, physical scientists, and engineers with 

relevant training (in science technology and society studies or policy)

Management Staffing Give professional recognition to social scientists at the same level as engineers (legitimize 

career path and encourage recruitment of NASA careers in the social sciences)

Management Strategy Incorporate ethical and social implications in review governance

Management Strategy Institute top-down expectations and make them part of NASA values, but make them real - not 

lip service
42

Category Sub-Category Policy option 

Management Strategy Increase end-to-end ownership of space missions and subsystem design, and increase ethics 

training for project managers

Management 

Systems 

Engineering

Define clear requirements that reflect ethically and societally responsible exploration

Management 

Systems 

Engineering Put policy experts and ethicists on the Moon to Mars Architecture team

Management Specific Decision Prepare technicians to be complemented (not replaced) by robots & AI

Management Specific Decision Astronaut selection: Have the corps be more representative of population

Management Specific Decision Create a dedicated lunar graveyard

Management Specific Decision Decide how to deal with labor issues with private partners and contractors

National Policy External to NASA Create a tax system for wealth redistribution for money generated in space

National Policy External to NASA Institute reparations

Policy Advisory Process

Create a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) committee for ethics or a representative subcommittee 

reporting to Ethics Advisory Group (AG). This should be sufficiently independently run

Policy Advisory Process Get ethical/societal impact researchers onto NAC or ASAP

Policy Incentives Create incentives and codify expectations in policy to listen to diverse voices and integrate 

inputs

Policy, 

Management 

Advisory Process Create ethics forum that is tied to some incentive

Policy, 

Management 

Advisory Process Institute an advisory board for ethics and societal issues at NASA

Policy, 

Management 

Capability, 

Advisory Create Chief Ethics Officer position at NASA

Policy, 

Management 

Collaborations Develop a grass roots interest in ethical considerations
43

Category Sub-Category Policy option 

Policy, 

Management 

Collaborations Establish multistakeholder collaborations on ELSI

Policy, 

Management 

Collaborations Emphasize collaborating with URM/AI/AN [under-represented minorities, American Indians, 

African Nations]

Policy, 

Management 

Planetary 

Protection Add ethical considerations to planetary protection policy

Research Benchmarking Engage with other federal agencies that integrate ethics into missions to learn from their 

practices

Research Benchmarking Benchmark against other space agencies' (or analogous partners) practices

Research Capability Support interdisciplinary research (e.g., through a virtual institute like Solar System Exploration 

Research Virtual Institute)

Research Capability Create regular rhythms for consultations funding for ethics considerations

Research Capability Leverage existing infrastructure (competencies, Congressional Budget Justification, Congress, 

etc.)

Research Capability Establish and fund ethics research at NASA

Research Capability Create a pool of ethicists that mission managers can call on (like with lawyers)

Research 

Convening 

Mechanism SSERVI: Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute, NASA sponsored event

Research Framework A club to discuss how to be a "boundary spanner,” how to be transdisciplinary

Research Framework Find a middle ground between technology, policy, ethics, science, etc.

Research Framework Craft solution-oriented ethics language into policy and technical developments

Research Framework Reanalysis of lessons learned for past ELSI

Research Framework Systematize ethical considerations

Research Framework Investigate frameworks for long-term spaceflight that don't rely on the finite resource of lunar 

water ice
44

Category Sub-Category Policy option 

Research 

Framework, 

Capability

External assessments are necessary for review of and to develop new ideas on NASA’s ethical 

responsibility and stance

Research Motivating ELSI Demonstrate the positive value of ethics

Research Motivating ELSI

Show how considering societal input up front generates public support (and money); how being 

an ethical workplace reduces distraction – but still requires developing alternative metrics and 

currencies.

Research 

Public Value 

Mapping Conduct a participatory assessment for Mars now

Research, Policy 

Management 

Capability Develop a Real Time Ethical Analysis Mechanism (R TEAM)
45

Appendix E: What are Key Ethical and Societal Implications in 

Artemis and Moon to Mars?

This appendix captures some of the participants’ comments that motivated the one-page summary shown above in the report in 

Table 1. During the first day of brainstorming, participants came up with approximately 95 ideas about possible ethical and societal 

implications that NASA should consider about the Artemis program and future of Moon to Mars exploration. We recognize that 

many different kinds of comments fall under this notion of ‘idea’– we asked participants to write down important ideas or topics that 

should be discussed at the workshop. We label these ideas or topics, but recognize that they represent only potential challenges 

raised by individuals, and their inclusion in this report does not reflect an endorsement by NASA or the U.S. Government.

40 We did 

not edit the ideas in this table, except for clarifying notes in italics for a few of the inputs.

Table 5: Main topics identified from the workshop

Theme Grouping Ideas or Topics Idea (ranking by stickers) 

Theoretical

 

 

 

 

 

Defining Ambiguous 

Terms

Understanding due regard

Definition of "accessibility"

What is harm? Narrow vs. expansive definitions

Definition of "sustainable" 

Who Makes 

Decisions and

Communicates with

the Public

A polarized discussion pro vs. against the Artemis Accords does not 

equal pro vs. against NASA

Differing Cultural 

Values

Societal challenge: Everyone has different views and there will always 

be someone who opposes

40 Table 5 contains the majority of the topics identified from the workshop. Originally, there were approximately 142 topics identified but the list was 

condensed to 95 topics by study leads due to similarities between topics or judged appropriateness to the study.
46

Theme Grouping Ideas or Topics Idea (ranking by stickers) 

Theoretical

Do objects in space only have value as capital? Do they also have 

value as spiritual or aesthetic objects? 

What ARE our guiding values for space exploration? 

Inclusion of alternative visions of space exploration 

Which are the main imaginaries about space exploration at global 

south?

Sharing Benefits

How to arrive at shared definitions of equity and benefit sharing 

Inequality: How are benefits distributed? 

Environmental 

Ethics

How do we make the case that the lunar environment is worth 

protecting?

Outer space as a commons

Debris Management/Waste Removal etc. 

Historical Values 

and Colonialism

Cultures not colonies 

Mismatch between rhetoric of why we go to space and the reality of 

how we have actually explored/gone to/colonized space 

Not repeating the mistakes of colonialism 

Policy and 

Governance

What does the labor movement look like in space? 

We (humankind) can barely coexist on Earth without conflict. How do 

we ensure space remains conflict-free?

Intergenerational justice 

Legal framework to enforce ethical compliance

Parity among commercial and public interests

Reflective Capacity 

of Practitioners

Ethics of sending humans to the Moon when basic human needs are 

not met on Earth

Value prop. of Moon to Mars /Artemis to citizens of low socioeconomic status

How much emphasis should be placed by NASA on inspiring the next 

generation(s) about exploration?
47

Theme Grouping Ideas or Topics Idea (ranking by stickers) 

Theoretical

 Funding justification in context of opportunity cost w/ other federal 

funding

Risk Posture for sending humans to Mars--how safe does it need to 

be?

Why are we going to space?

Forecasting

 

 

 

Environmental 

Ethics

Hiding environmental impacts on Earth and on the Moon

Historical Values 

and Colonialism

"Industrialization" in space works just like industrialization on Earth 

Potential for militarization of the lunar surface driven by economic 

protection

Policy and 

Governance

Is "soft law" sufficient? If not, is international "hard law" feasible 

politically? 

Any precautions being taken by governments are undone by private 

companies who have been emboldened by a subservient (dependent) 

public sector

How are we going to resolve a conflict? What happens if two entities 

want to operate in the same patch?

Cooperation with other countries with Moon use (i.e., some may agree 

but others may disregard completely)

Artemis Accords make unilateral institutions stronger or weaker? Why?

Who is responsible if someone needs rescuing 

What happens when China lands before the USA?

Flexibility for Change

Is Artemis "too big to fail?" [and interpret this as Artemis cannot be 

influenced to reach more ethical ends?]

Is Artemis "too small to succeed?" [is a more transformative vision 

needed for Artemis to help open up the solar system?]

How will employees be treated on the Moon when the employer 

controls life support?
48

Theme Grouping Ideas or Topics Idea (ranking by stickers) 

 

 

 

Who Makes 

Decisions and 

Communicates with

the Public

What does the public think?

Decision Process

 

Differing Cultural 

Values

How can NASA best be aware of all cultural issues surrounding human 

space exploration 

How does this process/workshop add to present processes where 

values/ethics are "baked" into regular governing/"democracy," etc.

How should NASA engage with different cultural groups and social 

scientists on the ethics of space exploration?

Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion and 

Accessibility (DEIA)

Tribal nation representation in Artemis project (knowledge, industry, 

ethical concerns)

Making IDEA (Inclusion, diversity, equity, access) real

Where do we get money to do research about how people with 

disabilities comanage in space?

Create a 53rd Space Grant for National Native American Space Grant

Office of Tribal Affairs Needed

Historical Values 

and Colonialism

No more snake oil or false prophets

Policy and 

Governance

How do we engender long term responsibility for activities taken by 

companies and governments?

How to create effective accountability outside of state jurisdiction? 

Can we implement rules incrementally for space mining (learn as you 

go) vs. everything before mining is allowed?

Reflective Capacity 

by Practitioners

ELSI absorptive capacity inside NASA

Ethics precedes mission new prime directive

The ethics conversations are happening in a silo/echo chamber
49

Theme Grouping Ideas or Topics Idea (ranking by stickers) 

Decision Process 

Who Makes 

Decisions and 

Communicates with 

the Public

Who gets to make decisions about what happens in space?

When NASA asks for community input, how can they ensure they 

connect broadly with diverse groups?

How are Artemis crews selected?

Do we have all the information we need to make good decisions?

Public values not incorporated purposefully into NASA strategy, 

program budget 

In what ways should NASA communicate to the public how the Agency 

is thinking about social and ethical issues related to Artemis?

Education and 

Workforce

Integration of social scientists and ethicists into the Artemis project

Engineers/scientist receive little to no ethics training. Focused on 

technical aspects only.

Lack of humanities/social scientists integrated as TEAM members

Opportunity to bring scientists, humanities/soc. science and 

stakeholders/public together w/scenario workshops

Decision Process, Theoretical

Differing Cultural 

Values

Differing cultural understandings of the Moon 

Consensus and goals of nations and people in Africa and diaspora on 

Moon to Mars

Broader values: vulnerability of Earth, ethics as driving force rather 

than "evaluative" 

Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion, and 

Accessibility (DEIA)

How do we design vessels and habitats that can accommodate people 

with disabilities 

There are any opportunities for regional space agencies like ESA or 

Latin American and Caribbean Space Agencies (LACSA) at Artemis 

Accords or 'New Space ' Era?

Environmental 

Ethics

Environmental ethics can be integrated how? 

As space exploration continues to grow, are we being mindful of its 

impact on the environment? 

Historical Values 

and Colonialism

Collective mobilization knowledge from cultural, historical, and 

scientific perspectives. (non-colonizational)
50

Theme Grouping Ideas or Topics Idea (ranking by stickers) 

Decision Process, Theoretical 

 

Policy and 

Governance

How do we build norms for responsible behavior that don't feel like 

U.S. imposition on other countries?

Who Makes 

Decisions and

Communicates with 

the Public

Public value integration 

Decision Process, Forecasting 

Policy and 

Governance

If we arrive at equitable practices, how do we enforce them?

Decision Process, Substantive Issues Who Makes 

Decisions and

Communicates with 

the Public

How should heritage sites or other areas of significance be selected for 

protection? Who decides what is worth protecting? 

Substantive Issues 

Diversity, Equity, 

Inclusion, and 

Accessibility (DEIA)

Do we need to reserve parts of the Moon for developing countries?

What happens if someone is disabled during long duration missions? 

Environmental 

Ethics

Can we/should we design parks as areas of preservation on the 

Moon? (Maintaining/preserve historical/cultural significant sites on 

Moon, Mars, etc.)

"Landfills" on other celestial bodies; (Envir-orbital debris); [Where do 

we put our trash?]

International planetary protection issues? (Sample return)

As we place emphasis on reducing the effects of climate change, we 

need to be mindful of ensuring we don't make the same mistakes again 

on other bodies.

What rights would microbes on Mars have?

To what extent should we extract lunar resources?

Substantive Issues, Decision Process Environmental 

Ethics

To what extent should we extract lunar 'resources'?
51

Theme Grouping Ideas or Topics Idea (ranking by stickers) 

 

Policy and

Governance

Will scheduling or sequencing of activities help reduce concerns 

w/ISRU?

If someone dies, what happens to their body? And how does this 

change for Moon vs. Mars?

Water [we assume this is about who has access, regulation, sharing]

How can you build a facility without claiming property or territory?

What can go to the Moon? (Right now, you can buy a spot on a lander 

and send whatever you want)

Who Makes 

Decisions and 

Communicates with 

Public

How to make sure this event doesn't simply become "good PR" for the 

Artemis Accords?

Decision Process, Substantive Issues Who Makes 

Decisions and

Communicates with 

the Public

How should heritage sites or other areas of significance be selected for 

protection? Who decides what is worth protecting? 
52

The graphs below depict the number of ethical ideas presented at the workshop per theme and topic based on the data shown 

above and our coding approach discussed in the main report text. These data visualizations help to illustrate the diversity of topics 

presented at the workshop, and that the most commonly discussed ideas were theoretical.
53

Defining

ambiguous

terms

Who makes

decisions

and

communicat

es with the

public

Differing

cultural

values

Sharing

benefits

Environment

al ethics

Historical

values and

colonialism

Policy and

governance

Reflective

capacity of

practitioners

Flexibility for

change

Diversity,

equity,

inclusion,

and

accessibility

(DEIA)

Education

and

workforce

Series1 4 12 11 2 13 7 22 8 3 9 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

Number of Workshop Ideas

Ethics Topics

Number of Workshop Ideas per Ethics Topic
54

Appendix F: Artemis and Ethics workshop agenda

Artemis Ethics Workshop Agenda

Day 1: April 12, 2023

Time Topics Presenter(s)

8:00 AM

Welcome Remarks Ellen Gertsen, Deputy Associate Administrator, OTPS

Kickoff and Purpose Dr. Zachary Pirtle, OTPS

8:30 AM

Legal and ethical context for lunar activities Michelle Hanlon, For All Moonkind

Recent Calls for Ethical Investigation Dr. Parvathy Prem, Applied Physics Laboratory

9:30 AM On Fundamental Narratives for Space

Dr. Natalie Treviño, Open University

Daniel Hawk, GALXYZ, LLC

10:30 AM Break

10:45 AM Lessons Learned from Ethical, Legal, Society Aspects (ELSA) 

research in the U.S. Government

Dr. Kelly Smith, Clemson University

Dr. Shannon Conley, James Madison University

11:45 AM Lunch Break then return to 2E39

12:30 PM Brainstorming Session #1 Full Group Participation

1:45 PM Environmental Issues and History

Dr. Afreen Siddiqi, MIT

Dr. Teasel Muir-Harmony, National Air and Space 

Museum

2:45 PM Break

3:00 PM

Ethics of Opportunity Costs in Exploration Dr. Linda Billings, Consultant

Past Ethics: 'Responsible' Technologists from Apollo to 

Artemis Dr. Mathew Wisnioski, Virginia Tech

4:00 PM Discussion Session #2 Small Group Participation
55

Artemis Ethics Workshop Agenda

Day 2: April 13, 2023

Time Topics Presenter(s)

8:00 AM

Lessons in Implementing "Responsible Innovation" Dr. René von Schomberg, former EC

"Participatory Technology Assessment" Research

Dr. Mahmud Farooque, Arizona State University

Dr. David Tomblin, University of Maryland, College Park

9:00 AM National Air and Space Museum Guided Tour

11:30 AM Lunch Break (then return to 2E39)

12:30 PM Brainstorming Session #3 "Can This Be Practical?" Small Group Participation

1:45 PM

Different Bodies in Moon to Mars Dr. Sheri Wells-Jensen, Library of Congress

Global South and Equity Concerns Daniel Vizuete, FLASCO Ecuador

2:45 PM Break

3:00 PM On Equity Dr. Erika Nesvold, Just Space Alliance

3:40 PM Discussion Session #4 Group Participation

Day 3: April 14, 2023

Time Topics Presenter(s)

8:00 AM How Social Science Can Be Done on NASA Teams Dr. Janet Vertesi, Princeton University

9:00 AM Deconstructing Key Myths in Human Spaceflight Dr. J.S. Johnson-Schwartz

9:30 AM Break

9:45 AM

Policy Framings on Environmental Issues Jessy Kate Schingler, Open Lunar

Values in Antarctic Research Dr. Jessica O'Reilly, Indiana University

11:00 AM Discussion Session #5 Group Participation

12:00 PM Closing Comments

12:30 PM Workshop Ends
56

Appendix G: Acknowledgments

Several OTPS colleagues were pivotal in helping to moderate portions of the workshop events, 

including Gabe Merrill, Gabriel Swiney, Grace Wusk, Ken Wright, and Laura Delgado-Lopez (an 

SMD staff member previously detailed to OTPS).

NASA is thankful to Teasel Muir Harmony and the National Air and Space Museum for hosting 

curator-guided tours of the museum for workshop attendees. These tours provided critical 

opportunities for participants to converse among themselves and to also consider relevant 

societal impacts.

The Mission Directorate Points of Contact for the study were helpful in creating the workshop, 

and in helping to review and share the resulting insights from the workshop. They are:

• Space Technology Mission Directorate: Amy Kaminski, Jenn Gustetic

• Exploration Systems Mission Directorate: Jacob Bleacher, Nujoud Merancy

• Science Mission Directorate: Ryan Watkins, Debra Needham.

Thanks to Kelly Smith for suggesting a session on practical challenges. Swati Patel and 

Amanda Hernandez helped create the context.

We are deeply thankful to OTPS’s Taelor Jones, who was a pillar of support for the workshop, 

managing slides and other key activities. We are also thankful to Shanee Hill, of OTPS, as well 

as others such as Karshelia Kinard of SMD for helping to enable the NRESS contract team to 

support the workshop logistics. Thanks to Elizabeth Nellums as workshop note-taker and 

Warren Ferster as a copyeditor of this report.
57

Appendix H: Acronyms

Acronym Definition 

CLPS Commercial Lunar Payload Services

EC European Commission

ELSA Ethical, Legal and Societal Aspects (revised framing for ELSI) 

ELSI 

Ethical, Legal and Societal Implications (historically tied to the ELSI 

funding initiative begun by the Human Genome Project) 

ESA European Space Agency

ESDMD Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate 

ESSIO Exploration Science, Strategy and Integration Office (in SMD)

GPRA Government Performance and Reporting Act

GPRAMA Government Performance and Reporting Act Modernization Act

HQ NASA Headquarters

ISRU In Situ Resource Utilization 

LDEP Lunar Discovery and Exploration Program (SMD program)

MEP Mars Exploration Program

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASEM National Academies for Science, Engineering and Medicine (U.S.)

OTPS Office of Technology Policy, and Strategy (within NASA)

OSTP 

Office of Science and Technology Policy (Executive Office of the 

President)

PSD Planetary Science Division

pTA Participatory Technology Assessment

ROSES Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences

RI (or RRI) Responsible Innovation (also, Responsible Research and Innovation)

SMD Science Mission Directorate 

STMD Space Technology Mission Directorate

STS Science, Technology and Society Studies

UN COPUOS United Nations Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space