The Artemis Accords' effectiveness would be limited without the signatures of three countries: China, Russia and India. The prospects of China and Russia signing on seem low at the moment. NASA is prohibited from engaging with China on space cooperation by Congress.

Until that changes, there's no chance of China signing on to a bilateral accord. Russia finds the entire Artemis program that gives the accords its name to be "too American-centric." In short, it appears Russia wouldn't have the same type of large role it has on ISS.

Jim Bridenstine has said the Artemis program agreements are based on the same type of intergovernmental agreements used for the space station. And that the lunar gateway will use open standards, allowing Russia and other nations to dock cargo and crew vehicles there. However...

..while all that is true, it rather misses a key point. In 1993, the Clinton Administration restructured space station Freedom around a U.S.-Russian partnership that brought Cold War enemies together. U.S. technology and money with Russia's enormous experience w/ space stations

ISS includes invaluable contributions from Europe, Japan & Canada. But, it is largely true program has been dominated led by the U.S. and Russia in a partnership that has survived serious tensions in the countries' relations. For better or worse, Artemis is evolving differently..

..Plans for Gateway and the landings have evolved largely in the U.S., which the Trump Administration has folded into its America First approach to international relations. NASA has reached out to a wider variety of partners whose space programs are much more capable than in 1993

Expedition 1 arrived at ISS on Nov. 2, 2000 aboard a Russian Soyuz and included two cosmonauts & 1 U.S. astronaut. The station at the time was composed of U.S. and Russian-built modules. The first Artemis landing on the moon will include two American astronauts.

Roscosmos General Director Dmitry Rogozin said Russia is looking to cooperate with China's surging space program as it looks to maintain presence in Earth orbit and send astronauts to the moon. Full scope of cooperation is unclear, but China is planning a base at lunar south pole

So, there are prospects of U.S.-led group governed by Artemis accord and a China/Russia led group following its own guidelines. India is the other major player as ISRO is looking to fly astronauts in Earth orbit in next few years.

NASA-ISRO space cooperation has been increasing in recent years. So, the U.S. could persuade India to sign the accords. However, human spaceflight is a very nationalistic act. There could be sensitivity abt signing accord created by U.S. and worked out in consultation w/ allies.

During a press availability, Bridenstine was asked why U.S. didn't take accords to U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space to seek a broader buy-in. Answer was the Trump Admin told NASA to move faster on Artemis (landing date moved up from 2028 to 2024).

That raises the question of what happens if NASA doesn't move fast. A reelected Trump would stay the course. If Biden is elected, does he move landing date back in direction of 2028 and decide these principles need broader buy-in and there's time to do so through UN COPUOS?

It's not entirely clear NASA can deliver by 2024. House FY 2021 spending bill doesn't give agency enuf money for lander to meet deadline. Senators was non-committal in recent hearings. Trillions spent to bail out #Covid19 ravished economy is constraining spending choices.

2024 is an election year. Trump would like nothing more than to end a second term with a moon landing. Pence would like to run for president having overseen the effort as head of the National Space Council. A key reason Artemis lacks the support it needs in Democratic-led House.