A case for not ceding the space race to China

The crowds that cheered the astronaut — about a quarter-million in Washington, four million in New York — adorned themselves in numerous ways. Some wore space helmets fashioned from cardboard and plastic. Others, less showily, wore buttons proclaiming John Glenn “the New Frontier man of the year,” a nod to John F. Kennedy’s famous phrase. Sixty years ago, Glenn became the first American to orbit Earth, opening up the frontier of human exploration in space — a frontier that stretched to the moon and beyond. The flight of Friendship 7 made it all seem possible.

Glenn’s feat marked the start of a spectacular decade: spacewalks, trips around the moon, six lunar landings. Then the frontier receded. Since 1972, no human being has ventured outside Earth’s orbit. A generation has reached middle age without any memory of Americans on the moon.

That could change soon. If NASA’s plan holds, its Artemis program will land the first woman and the first person of colour on the moon in 2025. And this, NASA says, is just the beginning. The agency envisions at least 10 lunar landings. Its administrator, Bill Nelson, is waging a campaign to beat other nations in placing “boots on the moon” — not just boots but also, in time, a base. And “the sooner we get to the moon,” NASA has said, “the sooner we get American astronauts to Mars.”

But why bother? There is certainly much of interest on Mars — NASA’s newest rover, Perseverance, and its companion, the tiny helicopter Ingenuity, have made that clearer than ever. What is less evident is the role, the value, of human explorers. To most Americans, machines seem sufficient to the task. A Morning Consult poll last year showed a general interest in space exploration but not in having humans do the exploring.

In 1961, when Kennedy proposed to send Americans to the moon, a senator warned that the administration had “a lot of missionary work” to do. That is surely the case today. Nelson has been making a persistent pitch for funding, but Congress appears unpersuaded. President Biden, for his part, has signalled support for Artemis but is more focused on the nation’s commercial and military capabilities in space, as well as the vantage point that space provides to observe climate change. Vice President Kamala Harris, the chair of the National Space Council, rarely mentions human spaceflight, stressing instead “the responsibility to look to our home planet.”

And reasonably so. Our planet has plenty to worry about, not least the damage we do to its atmosphere. But there is an argument to be made for the human exploration of space — a better argument, at least, than the White House and NASA have put forward. If the administration fails to sharpen and press its case, if it shies from insisting that humans, not just our inventions, should roam the heavens, the United States will likely cede the moon — and a good deal more than that — to more determined competitors.

Chief among them is China. Its goal is plain: to become a “great space power,” as President Xi Jinping has said. China’s Mars rover, arriving on the heels of our own, has been an impressive success; China also has a probe on the far side of the moon — a first for any nation. Its space station is nearly complete, while the International Space Station, after more than two decades orbiting Earth, approaches obsolescence and NASA turns to private companies to build and run its successors. Like the United States, China hopes to build a research station on the lunar surface. Unlike the United States, China gives no reason to doubt its resolve. It will also have a partner: Russia. The two countries have already begun to align their efforts. As Namrata Goswami, an expert on China’s space policy, has argued, “An advantage in accessing the vast wealth of the inner solar system could have an effect on the balance of power” on Earth.