If you’re a space cadet, you’ve likely noticed the volume turning up on the Moon over the last few weeks: American timelines, Congressional hearings, China’s ambitious program, commercial landers, and a rising chorus of voices weighing in.
Below, you’ll find the unequivocal essentials: what’s happened, who’s saying what, and how the geopolitics of lunar access and operations are evolving. For now, we steer clear of interpretation. Consider this Field Note your scoreboard. The real analysis, the “why it matters and where we go from here,” is coming soon.
What’s Happening with the Lunar Discourse: A Brief Timeline
- August 5: Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy (no relation to Per Aspera’s Ryan Duffy) announces the agency’s accelerated plans to deploy a 100-kilowatt nuclear fission reactor on the Moon by the first quarter of fiscal year 2030. The move advances previous timelines that targeted the early-to-mid 2030s and represents a direct response to China and Russia’s joint announcement to build an automated nuclear power facility on the Moon by 2035. “We are in a race to the Moon with China,” Duffy declares, noting that the first nation to establish nuclear infrastructure “could potentially declare a keep-out zone” around strategic lunar real estate.
- Early/Mid August: China conducts successful tests of its Lanyue lunar lander, marking the first demonstration of “extraterrestrial landing and takeoff” capabilities for a crewed spacecraft. Eric Berger of Ars Technica publishes his assessment: “China appears likely to beat the United States back to the Moon.”
- Late August: SpaceX conducts Starship Flight 10, achieving remarkable accuracy, with the ship splashing down just 3 meters from its target. Starship will serve as NASA’s Human Landing System for Artemis III, making every test flight critical for America’s future lunar lander.
- On Sept. 2, SpaceX President and COO Gwynne Shotwell posts on X: “Starting with Artemis 3, Starship will truly change the game. This is a race, not to repeat what has been done, but to do much more…Don’t bet against American innovation.”
- Last week: The Senate Commerce Committee convenes a hearing titled “There’s a Bad Moon on the Rise: How Congress and NASA Can Thwart China in the Space Race.” Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine testifies that under current schedules and funding, it is “highly unlikely” the U.S. will beat China back to the lunar surface.
- His testimony echoes warnings from three former NASA human exploration heads who published an op-ed in SpaceNews, arguing that the current Artemis plan will not return the U.S. to the Moon before China, citing continuous delays in key program elements and mission complexity.
- September 3: Duffy holds an all-hands meeting, telling NASA employees that “I’ll be damned if China beats us to the Moon.” That same day, former NASA Administrator nominee Jared Isaacman acknowledges the complexity of America’s lunar challenge while defending the ambitious approach: “I do agree we should be asking why taxpayers have spent [$100B+] trying to return to the Moon.” But, he argues, advances in orbital refueling and complex architectures are the price of admission for a sustainable lunar presence, not just a flags-and-footprints mission. In a separate post, he adds that “America will lead in this great adventure.”
- This past Saturday, Sept. 6: The White House weighs in, backing up Duffy’s declaration that “America will win ‘the second space race’ against China.” Duffy’s promise: “We’re going back to the Moon, and this time, when we plant our flag, we stay.”
What’s missing in this swirl is strategic clarity.
Is the Moon a proving ground, a strategic minerals resource, a geopolitical prize, or a distraction from nearer-term needs? That debate is still wide open, and worth a deeper look. We’ll reserve the full analysis for a later date.
For now: America has been here before. The rhetoric can get chaotic, but the facts are these: The race is on, and the world is watching.
Stay tuned for more…