pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17706 · v1 · pith:D33TJGKDnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM

'Unacceptable to our people': Diverse cultural beliefs, Indigenous rights, and the future of human activities on the Moon

John C. Barentine This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 23:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM
keywords Indigenous rightsOuter Space Treatylunar activitiescultural beliefsspace governancecommercializationDinéMoon
0
0 comments X

The pith

Activities on the Moon must incorporate Indigenous co-creation of governance to respect cultural beliefs and rights.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines the shift from state-led to commercial activities on the Moon and how this change collides with Indigenous cultural and spiritual views of the body. It reviews past interactions among states, private actors, and Indigenous societies for lessons on achieving fairer outcomes in space governance. The central example is the Diné people's opposition to NASA sending cremated remains to the Moon, which they described as unacceptable. The author concludes that the Outer Space Treaty's requirements for due regard and consultations are inadequate. Instead, participants must co-create the terms of human presence in space to honor rights and diverse beliefs.

Core claim

The paper claims that to handle the increasing commercialization of space and to address Indigenous rights, best practices for the Moon must go beyond the limited requirements of due regard and international consultations in the Outer Space Treaty. By studying the historical record and the specific conflict between NASA and the Diné people regarding cremated remains sent to the Moon in 1998 and 2024, the author shows the need for arrangements in which participants actively co-create a shared human future in outer space.

What carries the argument

The Diné-NASA dispute over sending human cremated remains to the Moon serves as the central case study to demonstrate gaps in current governance and the need for co-creation.

If this is right

  • Space missions involving the Moon would need to include Indigenous representatives in the planning stages to honor their perspectives.
  • Private companies would be expected to develop partnerships with Indigenous communities for lunar projects.
  • Updates to space law might emphasize co-creation to prevent conflicts similar to the one with the Diné people.
  • The role of agencies like NASA would evolve to facilitate these inclusive arrangements rather than direct control.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Applying this co-creation approach to missions targeting other bodies could help address similar cultural concerns elsewhere in the solar system.
  • Developing specific protocols for Indigenous involvement might be tested in upcoming lunar missions to refine the model.
  • Broader adoption could influence how humanity approaches the ethical use of space resources overall.

Load-bearing premise

The historical record of interactions between states, private actors, and Indigenous societies supplies reliable guidance for achieving just governance outcomes in commercial lunar activities.

What would settle it

A successful commercial lunar activity conducted solely under existing OST consultation rules that receives full acceptance from affected Indigenous groups would indicate that co-creation is not necessary.

read the original abstract

The human presence in outer space is undergoing a transition from one in which nation states are the dominant actors to an emerging status quo in which states merely supervise the activities of private entities. Such largely commercial ventures include extracting natural materials from the Moon, a celestial body of great cultural and spiritual reverence for some Indigenous societies. However, the existing international legal framework governing activities in space focuses on its "exploration and use", centered in a Western worldview that attaches to a past history of colonialism. While that framework, articulated in the Outer Space Treaty (OST), claims to guarantee that outer space will remain "the province of all [hu]mankind," only entities with significant political power have to date decided the limits of the acceptable uses of space. This paper examines the historical record for clues about how states, private actors and Indigenous societies might interact in the future on matters of outer space governance to achieve more just ends. It analyzes a key case study: the dispute between the NASA and the Din\'e people of the American Southwest over the launches of human cremated remains to the Moon in 1998 and 2024, acts the Din\'e president called "deeply disturbing and unacceptable to our people and many other tribal nations." In a future in which space becomes increasingly commercialized and entities like NASA transform into mere contract-administering agencies, it is unclear how an impending, exploitative human presence on the Moon can simultaneously honor Indigenous rights and perspectives on lunar issues. The presentation concludes that best practices for future engagement with the Moon must transcend the mere "due regard" and "international consultations" required by the OST in favor of arrangements where participants co-create a human future in outer space.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the transition from state-dominated to commercially supervised activities in outer space, including lunar resource extraction, renders the Outer Space Treaty's requirements of 'due regard' and 'international consultations' insufficient. Drawing on the historical record of interactions among states, private actors, and Indigenous societies, and centering on the case study of Diné objections to NASA launches of cremated remains to the Moon in 1998 and 2024, the manuscript concludes that future best practices must involve co-creation arrangements to honor diverse cultural beliefs and Indigenous rights.

Significance. If the central recommendation holds, the work could contribute to space policy discussions by highlighting cultural and ethical dimensions of lunar activities that are often secondary in technical literature. It may prompt consideration of more inclusive governance models as commercialization advances. However, the interpretive approach and reliance on a single case study without systematic evidence or tests constrain its potential to deliver actionable or generalizable insights.

major comments (2)
  1. [Case study analysis] Case study of the 1998/2024 cremated remains launches: The central claim that historical interactions supply reliable guidance for co-creation in commercial lunar activities rests on this governmental NASA-Diné dispute. The manuscript does not examine how Indigenous perspectives would bind or be enforced against private commercial contracts authorized under OST Article VI, nor how conflicting claims among groups would be adjudicated absent sovereignty. This gap directly affects whether the recommendation for transcending OST provisions follows from the presented evidence.
  2. [OST and historical record section] Discussion of the Outer Space Treaty and historical record: The argument for co-creation arrangements assumes continuity between state-led activities and future private commercial regimes. No analysis is provided of enforcement mechanisms or adjudication processes in a commercial context, leaving the normative conclusion without demonstrated support from the case study or treaty interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract contains 'hu]mankind', which appears to be a typographical error for 'humankind'.
  2. [Conclusion] The conclusion could clarify the practical meaning of 'co-creation' with at least one illustrative example to aid reader understanding.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which have helped us clarify the scope and implications of our analysis for commercial space activities. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the connections between the case study, the Outer Space Treaty, and future commercial regimes.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Case study analysis] Case study of the 1998/2024 cremated remains launches: The central claim that historical interactions supply reliable guidance for co-creation in commercial lunar activities rests on this governmental NASA-Diné dispute. The manuscript does not examine how Indigenous perspectives would bind or be enforced against private commercial contracts authorized under OST Article VI, nor how conflicting claims among groups would be adjudicated absent sovereignty. This gap directly affects whether the recommendation for transcending OST provisions follows from the presented evidence.

    Authors: We agree that the case study centers on a state-Indigenous interaction under NASA and does not furnish a comprehensive legal examination of how Indigenous perspectives would bind private commercial contracts under OST Article VI or how conflicting claims among groups would be adjudicated in the absence of sovereignty. The manuscript's argument is that the Diné objections demonstrate the practical insufficiency of the OST's 'due regard' and consultation requirements even in a governmental context, thereby supporting the normative recommendation for co-creation arrangements that could be adapted to commercial settings through state supervision. We have added a new paragraph in the discussion section outlining potential incorporation of co-creation into national licensing processes for commercial missions, drawing on terrestrial precedents such as Indigenous consultation in resource extraction. We maintain that the recommendation logically follows from the evidence of existing framework limitations, while acknowledging that full adjudication mechanisms remain an open question in international law and are beyond the paper's interpretive scope. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [OST and historical record section] Discussion of the Outer Space Treaty and historical record: The argument for co-creation arrangements assumes continuity between state-led activities and future private commercial regimes. No analysis is provided of enforcement mechanisms or adjudication processes in a commercial context, leaving the normative conclusion without demonstrated support from the case study or treaty interpretation.

    Authors: The manuscript explicitly notes the continuity provided by OST Article VI, under which states must authorize and continually supervise non-governmental entities, meaning the treaty's principles apply to commercial activities. The historical record, including the Diné case, is used to illustrate that minimal consultations have not adequately addressed cultural concerns. In response to this comment, we have expanded the OST section to include a brief analysis of how Article VI could be implemented nationally to require co-creation as a condition of authorization for lunar missions, thereby providing additional support for the normative conclusion. We disagree that the conclusion lacks demonstrated support, as the case study directly evidences the shortcomings of current provisions, but the revision strengthens the explicit linkage to commercial enforcement pathways. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Detailed mechanisms for adjudicating conflicting claims among multiple Indigenous groups in a lunar context without sovereignty, as this would require development of an entirely new international legal framework outside the historical and policy-analytic scope of the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; argument draws from external OST text and historical case study without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of citing the Outer Space Treaty provisions on 'due regard' and 'international consultations,' summarizing the historical record of state-Indigenous interactions, and presenting the 1998/2024 NASA-Diné cremated remains dispute as a case study. From these external sources it infers a normative recommendation for co-creation arrangements. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations are used as load-bearing steps; the conclusion does not reduce by construction to any input defined within the paper itself. The analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as the treaty text and documented events.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a qualitative policy discussion that draws on historical interpretation and treaty text without quantitative models, data fitting, or new postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The existing international legal framework governing activities in space focuses on its 'exploration and use', centered in a Western worldview that attaches to a past history of colonialism.
    Invoked in the abstract as the foundation for critiquing the Outer Space Treaty.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5845 in / 1102 out tokens · 35110 ms · 2026-05-19T23:09:35.818825+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

17 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bartels, M. 2024,. Human Remains Are Headed to the Moon, Despite Objections. Scientific American, 5 January.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-remains-are-headed-t o-the-moon-despite-objections/

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Biden, J. 2021,. Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships. Federal Register.https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/29/2021-02075 /tribal-consultation-and-strengthening-nation-to--nation-relationships

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    & Freeman, R

    Binagwaho, A. & Freeman, R. 2021, Decolonization of the Legal Code: The End of Colonial Laws in Rwanda and a Model for Other Post-colonial Societies.Harvard International Law Journal, 62, 95–135

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    2020., Merely a ‘Scrap of Paper’? The Outer Space Treaty in Historical Perspective.Diplomacy & Statecraft, 31(2), 350–372

    Buono, S. 2020., Merely a ‘Scrap of Paper’? The Outer Space Treaty in Historical Perspective.Diplomacy & Statecraft, 31(2), 350–372

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    1994,.A Man On The Moon: The Voyages Of The Apollo Astronauts

    Chaikin, A. 1994,.A Man On The Moon: The Voyages Of The Apollo Astronauts. Viking, New York, N.Y

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    1999., The 1979 Moon Agreement: Where Is It Today?Journal of Space Law, 27(1), 1–33

    Christol, C. 1999., The 1979 Moon Agreement: Where Is It Today?Journal of Space Law, 27(1), 1–33

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Cresswell, M. 2012,. How Buzz Aldrin’s communion on the moon was hushed up. Guardian, 13 September.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/13/buzz-a ldrin-communion-moon

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Fisher, K. 2025,. Navajo nation’s objection to landing human remains on the moon prompts last-minute white house meeting. CNN, 6 January.https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/world/peregrine -moon-mission-navajo-nation-objection-human-remains-scn

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Lagatta, E. 2024,. Navajo Nation ‘relieved’ human remains didn’t make it to the moon. Celestis vows to try again. USA Today, 19 January.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/01/1 9/peregrine-moon-lander-human-remains-navajo-nation/72279509007/. NASA 2012,. Catalogue of Manmade Material on the Moon. National Aeronautics and Space Administration H...

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Astronomy and Satellite Constellations: Pathways Forward

    Neilson, H. 2024,a. Indigenous knowledges and kinship as a model for our future in outer space. Proceedings of IAU Symposium 385, “Astronomy and Satellite Constellations: Pathways Forward”.https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06669

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Astronomy and Satellite Constellations: Pathways Forward

    Neilson, H. 2024,b. Overview of indigenous rights and outer space for the iau-cps policy hub.Proceedings of IAU Symposium 385, “Astronomy and Satellite Constellations: Pathways Forward”.https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06675

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Newman, C. 2020,. Artemis Accords: why many countries are refusing to sign Moon exploration agreement. The Conversation, 9 October. https://theconversation.com/artemis-accords-why-many-c ountries-are-refusing-to-sign-moon-exploration-agreement-148134

    work page 2020

  13. [13]

    2017., What is new space? the changing ecosystem of global space activity.New Space, 5(2), 84–88

    Paikowsky, D. 2017., What is new space? the changing ecosystem of global space activity.New Space, 5(2), 84–88

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    & Shapiro, L

    Powell, C. & Shapiro, L. 2013,. The Sculpture on the Moon. Slate, 16 December.https://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/sc ulpture_on_the_moon_paul_van_hoeydonck_s_fallen_astronaut.html

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Rickert, L. 2024,. Q&A: Navajo President Buu Nygren on Objections to Sending Human Remains to the Moon. Native News Online, 14 January. https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/read-nav ajo-president-s-reasons-for-his-objection-to-send-human-ashes-to-the-moon

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Tingley, C. 2024,. NASA responds to Navajo Nation’s request to delay private mission placing human remains on the moon. SPACE.com, 4 January.https: //www.space.com/nasa-responds-navajo-nation-objection-human-remains-moon. University of Arizona 1999,. Astronomers Will Watch Lunar Prospector Plume Saturday – And Wish Colleague A Final Happy Landing. Science...

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Woodard, S. 2024,. Tribes Call on NASA to Halt Desecration of the Moon. Barn Raiser, 29 February.https://barnraisingmedia.com/tribes-call-space-burials-nasa-desecra tion-of-the-moon/

    work page 2024