{"id":475009,"date":"2025-10-05T03:43:13","date_gmt":"2025-10-05T03:43:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/475009\/"},"modified":"2025-10-05T03:43:13","modified_gmt":"2025-10-05T03:43:13","slug":"beyond-the-space-race-rhetoric","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/475009\/","title":{"rendered":"beyond the space race rhetoric"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\"Orion\"\/<\/p>\n

The Orion spacecraft being prepared for Artemis 2. (credit: NASA\/Glenn Benson )<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

by John P. Christie
Monday, September 29, 2025<\/p>\n

\nNASA acting administrator Sean Duffy\u2019s recent declaration<\/a> that \u201cwe are going to beat the Chinese to the Moon\u201d captures the political zeitgeist perfectly. But buried within his own remarks lies a more troubling economic reality: \u201cAt $4 billion a launch, it becomes very challenging to have a moon program\u201d. This tension between political imperative and fiscal mathematics reveals a fundamental disconnect in how America approaches lunar competition\u2014one that may ultimately undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve.\n<\/p>\n\nThis tension between political imperative and fiscal mathematics reveals a fundamental disconnect in how America approaches lunar competition\u2014one that may ultimately undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\nWhen Duffy acknowledges the unsustainable economics of the Space Launch System while simultaneously demanding acceleration, he\u2019s highlighting a core problem with America\u2019s approach to lunar competition. At current costs, a lunar program of four launches per year would consume $16 billion annually\u2014a large fraction of the agency\u2019s entire budget. This isn\u2019t just expensive; it\u2019s economically incoherent as a foundation for sustained lunar presence.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe mathematics become even more stark when considering program duration. If Artemis requires even a decade of operations to establish meaningful lunar infrastructure, we\u2019re discussing $160 billion in launch costs alone, before accounting for other mission operations. Compare this to SpaceX\u2019s projected Starship costs of under $100 million per launch, and the economic irrationality of the current approach becomes clear<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\nYet rather than addressing these fundamental cost drivers, the political response is to demand speed over sustainability. Duffy\u2019s exhortation that \u201csometimes we can let safety be the enemy of making progress\u201d and that \u201cwe have to be able to take some leaps\u201d suggests a willingness to accept even higher costs in the name of timeline compression. This represents precisely the wrong economic incentive structure for long-term competitiveness.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe recent budget drama illustrates another economic contradiction. The Trump Administration initially proposed a historic 24% cut to NASA\u2019s budget, including 47% reductions to science programs. Congress is moving to restore those cuts, but only after months of uncertainty that disrupted program planning and contractor relationships\u2014 exactly the kind of instability that drives up costs in complex technical programs. This budgetary whiplash reveals the hollow nature of political commitments to space leadership. If beating China to the Moon were truly a national economic priority, it would merit stable, predictable funding increases, not dramatic cuts followed by political interventions. Instead, we see the classic pattern of American space policy: grand rhetoric accompanied by budgetary uncertainty that makes efficient program execution nearly impossible.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe restoration of funding after initial cuts also demonstrates that space programs operate more as political symbols than economic investments. Real economic priorities don\u2019t face 24% budget cuts in the first place. The fact that Artemis funding was protected while science programs faced elimination suggests that the lunar program\u2019s value lies more in its political utility than its economic returns.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe current approach embodies what might be called \u201csprint economics\u201d, an optimizing for short-term political victories rather than long-term competitive advantage. This creates several economic distortions. Rushing to meet arbitrary political deadlines means accepting higher costs and technical compromises that increase long-term program expenses. The SLS exemplifies this problem: a vehicle designed by political requirements rather than economic optimization, resulting in costs that make sustained operations prohibitive. The political imperative to use existing contractors and proven technologies to minimize schedule risk actively inhibits the cost-reducing innovations that could make lunar operations economically viable.\n<\/p>\n

\nSpaceX\u2019s Starship development, proceeding independently of political timelines, demonstrates how different approaches can achieve order-of-magnitude cost reductions. Having invested heavily in expensive approaches, political and bureaucratic incentives favor continuing those investments rather than acknowledging their economic inefficiency. The result is a lunar program that becomes increasingly expensive to maintain and increasingly difficult to abandon.\n<\/p>\n

\nChina\u2019s approach, by contrast, appears more economically rational. Their methodical progression through Chang\u2019e missions builds capability incrementally while developing cost-effective technologies. Their Long March 10 rocket, designed specifically for lunar missions rather than adapted from existing systems, represents the kind of purpose-built optimization that America\u2019s political constraints prevent.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe economic question isn\u2019t whether America should compete with China in space: it\u2019s whether the current approach creates sustainable competitive advantage or merely expensive political theater. Three key economic realities suggest the latter. Sustainable space economics requires reducing access costs to enable broader participation and innovation. China\u2019s incremental approach and focus on cost-effective technologies better serves this goal than America\u2019s expensive sprint to plant flags. America\u2019s commercial space sector, led by companies like SpaceX, represents the most significant cost innovation in decades. Yet current lunar program architecture largely bypasses these innovations in favor of traditional cost-plus contracting that provides no incentives for efficiency.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe witnesses at the recent Senate hearing warned that losing the lunar race would damage America\u2019s economic and diplomatic position globally. As Mike Gold testified<\/a>, \u201cIf they get there first, we will see a global realignment that will impact our economy, our tax base, our ability to innovate, and our national security.\u201d But this assumes that symbolic victories translate to sustained competitive advantage\u2014an assumption that America\u2019s experience in previous space races should call into question.\n<\/p>\n\nWe see the classic pattern of American space policy: grand rhetoric accompanied by budgetary uncertainty that makes efficient program execution nearly impossible. <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\nRather than optimizing for landing first, America might optimize for landing sustainably. This would mean prioritizing cost reduction over schedule compression, leveraging commercial innovation rather than traditional aerospace approaches, building reusable scalable systems rather than expendable demonstration vehicles, and focusing on economic returns from lunar activities rather than political symbolism. Such an approach might concede the symbolic victory of first landing while establishing the economic foundation for long-term dominance. Given that lunar development will likely span decades, the country with the most cost-effective, sustainable approach will ultimately control lunar resources and opportunities.\n<\/p>\n

\nSean Duffy\u2019s admission that current launch costs make lunar programs \u201cvery challenging\u201d while demanding acceleration anyway encapsulates the economic incoherence of America\u2019s lunar strategy. Political imperatives are driving decisions that undermine long-term competitiveness in favor of short-term symbolism.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe real question isn\u2019t whether America will return humans to the Moon before a Chinese landing at the end of the decade. It\u2019s whether America will develop the economic capabilities to lead in lunar development over the next 50 years. Current policies suggest the answer may be no, not because America lacks technical capability, but because political constraints prevent the economic optimization that sustained space leadership requires.\n<\/p>\n

\nIf America truly wants to win the lunar competition, it needs to start thinking like economists rather than politicians. Otherwise, China\u2019s patient, cost-focused approach may prove more effective than America\u2019s expensive sprint to nowhere.\n<\/p>\n

John P. Christie is Associate Professor of Management & Economics and Chair of the Department of Business Management at Regis College.<\/p>\n

Note: we are now moderating comments. There will be a delay in posting comments and no guarantee that all submitted comments will be posted.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Orion spacecraft being prepared for Artemis 2. (credit: NASA\/Glenn Benson ) by John P. ChristieMonday, September 29,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":475010,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3844],"tags":[70,413,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-475009","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-space","8":"tag-science","9":"tag-space","10":"tag-uk","11":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115319498987419881","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475009","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=475009"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/475009\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/475010"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=475009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=475009"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=475009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}