No Clear Economic Gains: The Space Race Heats Up Between the US and China

The rivalry between China and the United States in the space sector is reigniting as a race with economic and strategic dimensions, focusing on the potential exploitation of lunar resources, the establishment of permanent or long-term infrastructure, and the enhancement of influence. However, these ambitions face challenges and space governance rules. Neither side has yet provided compelling justifications for the long-term benefits of staying on the Moon, according to East Asia Forum.

The clearest strategic value of the space race may lie in enhancing national and global prestige and status, while the scientific vision is linked to the possibility of humans relocating to other areas of the solar system.

Since 2019, American officials and experts have warned about the possibility of China monopolizing lunar resources and setting rules that could conflict with American interests.

In contrast, Chinese media described space exploration as "a competition for existence and sustainability in the long term," while Chinese officials presented the United States as a competitor for lunar resources.

The race revolves around reaching and exploring the Moon, establishing infrastructure on it, alongside using its resources to achieve economic and security gains.

Since China announced in 2000 the start of preliminary research for lunar exploration, it has implemented a multi-stage plan that could lead to a human landing on its surface in the coming years. This long-term project relied on developing China's space capabilities, including expanding its ability to manufacture and launch satellites and spacecraft, developing reusable launch rockets, operating a manned space station, and sending missions into deep space. Like the United States, China also seeks partnerships with international partners in its programs.

The ambitions of both countries are also united by shared interests. Although the current geopolitical environment makes finding points of agreement complex, the Cold War witnessed similarly tense conditions. Nevertheless, the United States, the Soviet Union, and dozens of nations managed to draft the Outer Space Treaty in 1967, and that era led to the Apollo-Soyuz mission, which later established the International Space Station.

Although cooperation between Washington and Beijing may stand before challenges, it is in their interest to find common ground regarding agreeing on rules for the safe and sustainable use of space, including the lunar environment.

Air and maritime transport rely relatively smoothly on the existence of common rules and standards agreed upon by states. However, the Artemis Accords, non-binding principles led by the United States to regulate space activities, face clear limits, as China does not seem ready to join a framework it did not help draft. Nevertheless, the United States can rely on the principles of the accords during any future negotiations with China regarding space governance.

A more fundamental problem emerges regarding the connection between planned lunar activities and declared strategic gains. Mining on the Moon does not appear financially viable in light of current commodity markets. There is also no clear national security argument making the Moon a priority, without assuming that its resources and lands have value and thus need protection.

There are also no guarantees that leading in any lunar activity will result in setting standards that other countries adhere to. It is expected that the United States and China will carry out the bulk of lunar activity over the next decade, but the rules of this activity will not necessarily be tied to who leads.

For example, it is unlikely that China's search for lunar water ice during upcoming missions will lead to other countries accepting Chinese-set mining standards. According to East Asia Forum, neither nation has offered a persuasive case for the long-term economic returns of maintaining a presence on the Moon.

Ultimately, the space race between the two powers remains driven more by symbolic prestige than by immediate tangible economic rewards, highlighting the gap between ambitious plans and realistic financial outcomes.