Getting Back to the Moon Before China No Sure Bet

Republicans and Democrats on a House committee today shared common ground on not letting China outpace the United States in space, but witnesses were generally pessimistic that NASA is on a path to beat China back to the Moon. They also stressed it is not just about returning to the lunar surface before China, but establishing a sustained presence there as well as continuing to lead in space science.

Today’s hearing before the space subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee came just one day after Jared Isaacman, President Trump’s nominee to be NASA Administrator, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee about the need to stay ahead of China as part of his confirmation process. Members of both parties in the Senate also are determined to keep America in the lead.

China’s slow but steady advancements in space over the past many decades are accelerating today at the same time the Trump Administration is proposing deep cuts to NASA’s budget.

In his opening statement, subcommittee chair Mike Haridopolos (R-FL) asked “Will humanity carry forward the American values of economic and political freedom or those of the Communist Chinese Party” as it achieves firsts like returning samples from the far side of the Moon and plans to return samples from Mars on a timeline that “may beat the United States”?

Ranking Member Valerie Foushee (D-NC) stressed that China knows “leadership in space has brought the United States invaluable geopolitical soft power, significant and beneficial international alliances, economic growth fueled by innovation, bold and inspiring missions that drive and attract STEM talent, and national security advantages.”

China’s commercial space sector also is advancing.  In a written statement, full committee chair Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) cited a recent report from the Commercial Space Federation that highlighted significant growth in China’s investment in its commercial space industry. “America’s commercial space sector is the envy of the world, but maintaining that status is not guaranteed, and our leadership is far from assured.”

Dean Cheng, a veteran expert on China military and security issues who spent many years at the Heritage Foundation and now is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, testified that China has an advantage because it “sticks to a plan.” That’s enabled by “the very authoritarianism that is a hallmark of the Chinese system,” but it means once the Chinese leader says do it, the bureaucracy makes it happen. On the other hand, Clayton Swope from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), thinks China misses out on the “free molecules that we have in our system” especially in the commercial arena. “Our free market principles-based approach where you have that chance for innovation” is a better approach.

The rallying cry at this hearing as well as yesterday’s is the “race” with China. Swope stressed that “if we’re in a race, it’s a race that has no end other than an end associated with the rise and fall of nations.” He agreed with sentiments attributed to physicist Edward Teller in 1963 that “in a race for knowledge we will win” but not if “we are not running, or running half heartedly.” Swope thinks the United States may be facing a similar situation today. “We need to start running.”

Patrick Besha, who was a long-time China expert for NASA until he was RIF’ed a few months ago and now is with Global Space Group, quoted another historic figure, President Lyndon Johnson: “In the eyes of the world, first in space means first, period. Second in space is second in everything.”

The United States won the race with the Soviet Union to the Moon when Apollo 11’s Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed in the Sea of Tranquility in 1969. No other country can be first on the Moon. Nonetheless, with the passage of more than 50 years, getting American astronauts back on the Moon before China sends taikonauts there is engendering a similar vibe.

Cheng made the point that what really matters, though, is getting there and staying. “We are, in a sense, in a relay of marathons” where one country may “be fastest on the second leg or the third leg, but that doesn’t mean you’ve won.”  What’s more important is “who will be able to sustain a presence on the Moon” and set the standards for future lunar operations, not to mention Mars and beyond. “Being first matters, being there persistently matters.”

Mike Griffin, who was NASA Administrator in the second half of George W. Bush’s Administration when the previous effort to return humans to the Moon — the Constellation program — was underway, had a different take. He agreed on the need for U.S. leadership and sustainable presence, but is convinced NASA is headed in the wrong direction.  “We have squandered a 60-year head start because Artemis won’t work” largely because the Human Landing Systems (HLSs) needed to get astronauts down to and back from the lunar surface require in-space refueling of cryogenic propellants.

Both HLS landers NASA has under contract — SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark II — rely on in-space cryogenic refueling even though it has never been demonstrated. Cryogenic propellants need to be constantly replenished due to boil-off, a distinct challenge in orbit around Earth or the Moon.

Griffin doesn’t see a way to overcome that with current technology and insists NASA should “only stick to a plan if it makes sense” and Artemis doesn’t. “We should start again.”

“We may or may not be able to return to the Moon before the Chinese execute their own first landing. … Space is hard. And despite the progress that China is making, mission success is guaranteed to no one. But though we may not win at this first step, we cannot cede the pursuit and leave the playing field to others.  — Mike Griffin

He went on to say that the “true risk the United States faces right now is not just in failing to return to the Moon before China, but in failing to commit to what winning really means,” not just being first but, as Cheng said, establishing a sustained presence.  “I am confident that China fully understands this.”

Foushee asked each of the witnesses for one-word answers to the question: is NASA on track to get back to the Moon before Chinese taikonauts arrive?

Not all succeeded with one word, but their sentiment was similar. Cheng replied “no, I am very pessimistic.” Swope: “worried.”  Besha: “maybe.” Griffin: “no possible way…with the present plan.”

Returning astronauts to the Moon was not the only topic. Democrats asked about impacts to NASA’s science programs due to proposed Trump Administration budget cutbacks and ongoing changes at Goddard Space Flight Center. Foushee showed a chart prepared by The Planetary Society comparing the status of space science in both countries if the Trump Administration’s FY2026 President’s Budget Request (PBR) is enacted.

One focus of discussion was NASA’s Mars Sample Return (MSR) project that is targeted for cancellation in the FY2026 budget request while China is planning to launch its own sample return mission to Mars in 2028. Haridopolos expressed concern about China achieving that milestone first in his opening remarks.

The goal of MSR is to return to Earth the carefully curated samples of Mars being collected right now by the Perseverance rover to determine if life once existed on the Red Planet. They can be studied in much greater detail in laboratories here than is possible with the equipment on Perseverance.

Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA), who represents a district near the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that manages MSR, asked what happens if China goes ahead with its plans and the United States doesn’t.

Swope replied that MSR is a historic opportunity. “I think the huge impact is beyond just geopolitics, that you could pull off a mission like that. I think it has science and long-term implications of maybe what is conceivably the most important discovery in the history of humankind.”

 

This article has been updated.