In the race led by the United States and China to return astronauts to the Moon, there is actually a common goal: establishing a durable, permanent, crewed lunar base. But the two countries’ specific plans for achieving that lunar goal are far from similar, with key differences that could dictate which country gets there first — and, perhaps, who will control the moon itself.
China’s Manned Space Mission Agency (CMSA) is aiming for a human landing no later than 2030. It plans to use its Mengzhou crew capsule and Lanyue lunar lander, which will be launched separately on its Long March-10 rockets. Officials have not yet selected a landing zone, but CMSA appears to be zooming in on a relatively low risk landing site near the equator, on the Earth-facing side of the Moon, similar to the approach used by NASA’s Apollo lunar program for its first crewed moon landing in 1969.
NASA, for its part, is pursue a landing in 2028. The astronauts will launch to the Moon aboard an Orion capsule atop a Space Launch System rocket, then be transported to the surface either by SpaceX’s Starship vehicle or Blue Origin Blue Moon Lander within the framework of the agency Artemis IV assignment.
On supporting science journalism
If you enjoy this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Unlike China which is moving towards an Apollo type plan, “security first”, American astronauts would target more dangerous sites near the most difficult to reach, rich in resources lunar south pole. And both nations want this region to be the site of their crewed outposts.
Two rival lunar bases, a common goal
China ultimately plans to establish the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), a two-phase lunar base built in partnership with the Russian space agency Roscosmos.
The initial, uncrewed phase of the ILRS will be led by two autonomous lunar landers, developed and operated by CMSA’s robotics-focused counterpart, the China National Space Administration (CNSA).
First, the planned Chang’e 7 mission, launching later this year, will land at Shackleton Crater in the South Pole to search for water ice and other resources that could be used to support the ILRS. Then, in 2028 or 2029, Chang’e 8 will travel to the region to conduct demonstrations of key base-building capabilities, such as making bricks from lunar soil. Ultimately, such “in situ resource utilization” could include turning lunar polar ice into drinking water or even rocket fuel. The second phase of the ILRS could support human occupants for extended stays on the surface.
NASA’s planned outpost, tentatively called Artemis Base Camp, would be led by the United States but would also include contributions from several other countries and a host of commercial partners. It, too, would be built in stages using a mix of robots and human astronauts. And it will be, at least at first, a disaster: talking to the New York Times in FebruaryNASA administrator Jared Isaacman noted that, for perhaps a decade after its founding, Artemis Base Camp will resemble a “futuristic junkyard with lots of landers and rovers around” before eventually acquiring more “pretty cool infrastructure.”
A policy of permanence
NASA has some ideas for “cool infrastructure” it could put on the Moon, including a fission reactor by 2030— but has remained mum on most details, says Marcia Smith, a space policy analyst who runs SpacePolicyOnline.com. But the most important detail of Artemis Base Camp, she says, may not involve a particular gadget or construction, but rather a change in official national policy.
The setting in question is in the NASA Authorization Act of 2026 which was passed March 4 by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and calls for the space agency to establish a “moon base on the lunar surface.”
During the committee’s work, its chairman, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, said the bill explicitly directs NASA to “create a permanent moon base so we can get there before China.”
The directive carries considerable weight, Smith says. “Building a moon base has been science fiction for decades, but it is now a stated goal of NASA,” she says, “and legislation is moving through Congress.”
The law acknowledges that it will be a gradual process, but “when it becomes a ‘moon base’ will undoubtedly be the subject of much debate within the space community,” Smith says, “especially if other countries like China do the same thing.”
Ultimately, establishing a “permanent” human presence on the Moon is a very different task from the “permanence” in low Earth orbit that NASA and other space agencies have achieved via crewed spacecraft like the International Space Station (ISS), says Clive Neal, a longtime advocate of lunar exploration and professor of planetary geology at the University of Notre Dame.
“’Permanent’ on the Moon means that we have a station on the lunar surface that always hosts a human,” explains Neal. The precedent is the ISS: supported thanks to international cooperation (but notably to the exclusion of China), this orbital installation has enabled a continuous human presence in space for over 25 years.
But for the Moon, “the first thing is to have a lunar port with a custom-built landing and launch pad,” says Neal. “It must be robust and easy to repair, used again and again without being destroyed, and withstand a rate of machines carrying people and goods coming and going from the same place.”
From there, rovers for surface transportation would be essential. “It’s a tiered but integrated infrastructure,” he says. “It’s electricity, ports, logistics, resources and housing.”
And speaking of habitation, “a tin can on the surface isn’t going to… be it,” Neal adds. A habitat would likely need to be buried beneath the lunar soil to protect occupants from cosmic radiation, micrometeoroid impacts, and the intense thermal oscillations associated with weeks of lunar day and night.
We’re here to stay, so stay away!
For Michelle Hanlon, executive director of the Center for Air and Space Law at the University of Mississippi, “permanence” on the Moon does not necessarily mean a single manned structure in a single location, but rather “the ability to maintain a continuous presence through regular missions, infrastructure construction and ongoing surface operations.”
A better way to think about a moon base is to think of it as a network of systems, says Hanlon. And since these systems can’t all be grouped together or directly next to each other (it’s best to keep rockets away from nuclear reactorsfor example), even a relatively small facility could have a fairly large operational footprint. In other words, permanence on the moon Because any nation will not just be about high-tech bricks and mortar, she says.
The foundational legal document for anyone wanting to set up a lunar shop is the United Nations Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The treaty effectively prohibits national appropriation or private ownership of the Moon, favoring a “for all humanity” approach. There are, however, loopholes that allow lunar explorers to establish “safe zones” to protect themselves and their work from potentially harmful interference from other visitors to the Moon. These zones would constitute operational buffers aimed at minimizing risks, Hanlon says, rather than explicit territorial claims. They could nevertheless prove to be exclusive.
“It will be a test of governance,” she said. “The real question is whether multiple nations can operate side by side in the most valuable locations on the Moon without turning operational security into geopolitical exclusion. »
To complicate all this, the Moon’s south pole is rugged and far from more easily accessible regions, meaning there are surprisingly few places to build there. Several key conditions must align: suitable terrain for landing; near-continuous sunlight for energy; the proximity of permanently shaded craters that may contain water ice; and ideally, the capacity for line-of-sight communications with Earth.
“These combinations only occur in limited places,” says Hanlon. “So the real issue is not whether there is room anywhere on the Moon, but whether there is room at the handful of sites that make sustained operations practical.
