Senate Hearing on China’s Moon Mission

The Senate Commerce Committee, responsible for overseeing NASA, recently conducted a hearing with a rather dramatic title: “There’s a bad moon on the rise. Why should Congress and NASA stop China in the space race?” This title pretty much sums up their concerns about China potentially becoming the first country to return to the moon, along with what actions can be taken to counter this development.

So, what exactly is this perceived threat from China? The general agreement among the witnesses was that if China returns to the moon, there could be significant advantages in various sectors.

Jim Bridenstine, who used to be NASA’s administrator, referred to these advantages as “dimes,” which stands for diplomacy, intelligence, military, and economy. Essentially, the idea is that a country that makes it back to the moon would gain considerable power on Earth for a substantial time.

The witnesses highlighted the economic aspects of space exploration—not just related to the moon, but also in low Earth orbit, which can be quite beneficial.

Mike Gold, who leads Redwire, a private space company, shared that they’ve conducted numerous experiments at the International Space Station. These studies could pave the way for breakthroughs in advanced medicine and organ cultivation for humans.

Another intriguing point was the potential for mining helium-3 from the moon, which could play a significant role in future nuclear fusion energy.

However, the moon’s significance goes beyond economics; it carries national security implications as well. Control over the moon could allow a nation to exert both military (“hard”) power and diplomatic (“soft”) influence.

Many participants felt that it is crucial for the United States to lead the effort to return to the moon. If China takes the lead, it could pose a dire threat due to its authoritarian regime and ambitions for global power.

Unfortunately, solutions to keep China from beating the U.S. to the moon were rather vague among both the witnesses and committee members. There were mentions of “magnificent strategies,” but specifics seemed lacking. Some participants emphasized the need for stable and consistent funding.

Chairman Ted Cruz from Texas pointed out the importance of maintaining a reliable architectural framework, instead of making what he labels a “premature” switch to commercial vehicles away from the Orion/Space Launch System.

Bridenstine and others supported the notion of a lunar orbital space station as a vital component of future lunar missions.

Nuclear power also came up in discussions. Witnesses praised interim NASA administrator Shawn Duffy’s recent decision to aim for a nuclear power plant on the moon by 2030.

Bridenstine did express concern about one technology, the SpaceX Starship Human Landing System, which he feels is not sufficiently equipped to reliably land astronauts on the moon and bring them back.

He argued that the complexity of this landing system necessitates multiple refueling missions in low Earth orbit, which may delay its readiness. He mentioned that if he had been in charge when the lunar lander was selected, he would not have cut this program.

For now, the human landing system remains the chosen vehicle for making it back to the moon, though no alternative plans appear to be getting ready in a timely manner.

As for SpaceX’s Elon Musk, I think he’s not one to pull unexpected surprises. The situation feels somewhat urgent, likening it to a “Sputnik moment” for the U.S.

Ultimately, it’s uncertain how the U.S. will react. If NASA and its partners don’t establish a permanent base on the moon, then what could be seen as a significant achievement may only be a short-lived victory for China.

The future could hinge on crafting clear and effective policies that manage short-term setbacks while striving for long-term success.