Don’t Lose the Race Back to the Moon
Udumbara
While turbulence on Earth threatens the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) goal to return to the moon by mid-2027, members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Astronaut Corps are scheduled to land on the moon by 2029 or 2030.
At the Wencheng Satellite Launch Center on Hainan Island, the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) is building the launch tower for its first moon-rated manned space launch vehicle, the Long March-10 (LM-10), that could begin testing in 2026.
Two LM-10s will carry their new manned Mengzhou spaceship, which, on June 17, completed a test of its launch escape system. Additionally, a Lanyue manned moon-landing vehicle, a prototype of which is currently in testing on Earth, is increasing confidence that China will meet its lunar schedule.
Then, in the 2030s and beyond, China’s PLA-controlled space program will build multiple moon bases in cooperation with Russia, loft a dense constellation of lunar satellites that will enhance PLA control of cis-lunar space, and subsequently control access to the moon and Mars.
That’s not all.
In August 2023, experts from CASC announced a three-year project to create a 100-year plan for the exploration and occupation of planets, moons, and asteroids, effectively extending the influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) throughout our solar system.
The CCP likely calculates that its ambitions for hegemony on Earth cannot be achieved without also securing hegemony in space, which starts with dominance over the Earth–moon system.
In 2017, the first Trump administration did the United States and the free world a great service by reviving the United States’ moon program, which had been cancelled by the Obama administration in 2010.
It has since blossomed into the Artemis moon program, built upon the 2020 Artemis Accords for peaceful and transparent lunar conduct, now signed by 55 countries.
But the power of the Artemis moon program to deter future cis-lunar and lunar conflicts depends on the Artemis partners building an early and sustained presence on the moon before China and Russia.
This goal, in turn, would be far more efficient to achieve if NASA were to retain its ability to leverage the cost-slashing reusable space launch vehicles offered by private sector billionaires, such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin.
The current legacy NASA Boeing Space Launch System (SLS), which has performed one unmanned Artemis-I circumlunar mission in November 2022 and is scheduled for the mid-2027 Artemis-III manned mission to the moon, costs about $1 billion per mission at a payload rate of $1,700 per pound.
.
All of this expense would only ensure the transfer of Artemis program astronauts to two NASA reusable Human Landing System (HLS) moon landers. This is the reason why the SLS was slated for cancellation in the early White House 2026 budget for NASA. But funding for these landers may now come through the Artemis-V mission.
When it is finally working and launching regular missions, the HLS version of the SpaceX Starship, requiring an estimated eight to ten space refueling missions to reach the moon, could put 100 tons of cargo on the moon with an eventual estimated payload launch cost of $227 per pound.
Blue Origin’s New Glenn space launch vehicle, which performed its first test mission on Jan. 16 and did not demonstrate the recovery of its reusable first stage, could eventually loft more than 45 tons to the moon at an estimated launch cost of $680 per pound, while its HLS Blue Moon landing vehicle could take about 20 tons to the lunar surface.
However, current and potential future political turmoil between the Trump administration, Musk, and Bezos could threaten NASA’s access to SpaceX’s and Blue Origin’s low-cost reusable space launch vehicles and their associated moon landing vehicles.
Musk’s early June public break-up with President Donald Trump, and the continuing turmoil between the two, now compounded by Musk’s ambitions to create a third political party that could threaten Republican Party control over the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections, raises the prospect of Trump deciding to reduce or terminate U.S. government space business with SpaceX.
Additionally, losing control of the House could lead to broad Democratic Party obstruction of Trump’s agenda, which will be chronicled and amplified by anti-Trump media outlets.
For NASA, which will continue to face pressure to reduce its budget and to end some programs, there is now a new priority to secure multiple options for assuring access to the moon.
A possible loss of access to SpaceX’s space launch vehicles and moon landers would not necessarily mean an equal loss of access to Blue Origin’s space launch vehicles and moon landers. However, any shift toward reliance on Blue Origin could require integrating the legacy 26-ton Orion manned spacecraft with the New Glenn space launch vehicle.
The United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur space launch vehicle can loft 27 tons to low Earth orbit, but at an estimated payload cost of about $3,300 a pound, though it could be developed into a moon transport vehicle.
If there is demand, the Rocket Labs Neutron and Northrop Grumman Eclipse, both first-stage reusable space launch vehicles in development, could be funded to evolve into lunar-access-capable space launch vehicles.
Multiple lower-cost lunar access options could be facilitated by the continuation of the Artemis program’s Gateway, a manned small lunar space station that was also slated for cancellation by the White House, despite being a centerpiece for participation by Artemis program international partners that are also footing 60 percent of its cost.
As Gateway was intended to host reusable moon landing vehicles, lower-cost space launch vehicles could be used to transport rocket fuels and crew to the landers, which could compensate for the retirement of the Space Launch System and the possible loss of access to SpaceX’s or Blue Origin’s space launch vehicles.
Gateway also offers a useful platform for preserving a rapid emergency lunar rescue capability, ensuring communication with lunar bases and other lunar assets, and hosting surveillance systems, while also offering a counter to a possible Chinese lunar space station—an option China is considering.
To be sure, it is also possible that Trump, having demonstrated a capacity for securing practical outcomes from conflicts, could decide to pursue his political agendas while retaining NASA’s access to Musk’s and Bezos’s moon-related space launch vehicles and moon lander projects.
But preserving American leadership in returning to the moon and building a strategically significant lunar presence now requires planning to ensure that the United States has multiple options for sustaining access to the moon.
