In October 2025, Jim Bridenstine, who led NASA under the first Trump administration, told a US Senate hearing:“Unless something changes, it is highly unlikely the United States will beat China's projected timeline.”

Given that NASA landed crews on the lunar surface six times in the 1960s and 70s, getting there now might seem as if it should be straightforward. Unfortunately, the rockets and capsules used for the Apollo program are no longer in service and would be extremely difficult to reproduce today. With advanced technology, however, we should be able to produce more efficient missions capable of launching heavier payloads.

Of course the big difference between now and the Apollo era is funding. At its peak (between 1965 and 1966) NASA was being given 4.5% of all US spending annually. This dropped consistently over subsequent decades and, in 2024, sat at around 0.4%. This factor of ten less means fewer staff, reduced innovation and more reliance on international collaborations.

NASA has an additional disadvantage that many other spacefaring nations do not. The president helps determine the goals of the agency. With the office changing hands (and potentially party) every four to eight years, a singular vision can be difficult to establish. It can also make the agency slower to react to changing geopolitics.

With China's planned Moon launch fast approaching, Duffy's call for new landers might appear to be cutting it fine. One likely contender may be able to modify an existing vehicle rather than starting from scratch. Jeff Bezos's company, Blue Origin, is planning an uncrewed launch of its Mark 1 lander to the lunar surface in early 2026. The vehicle was designed to transport cargo, not people. But a report in Ars Technica suggests Blue Origin is looking to redesign the spacecraft so that it can carry crew.

The company's plan reportedly involves“multiple” Mark 1 vehicles to ferry crew to the Moon's surface and then return to lunar orbit. Duffy has already told Fox News that he expects Blue Origin to“get involved.” Critically, the proposal from Bezos's company would skip the technical challenge of refuelling in orbit, which is required of Starship (though it's unclear at this stage how Blue Origin would avoid this).

At the same time, aerospace giant Lockheed Martin has also been putting together a group including a dozen other unnamed industry players that would build a lunar lander from existing hardware. Lockheed's vision for the Artemis III lander would take some design cues from the Apollo-era lunar module.

The day after Duffy's lunar contract announcement, Musk launched an online tirade at NASA's acting chief. On X, Musk posted:“Should someone whose biggest claim to fame is climbing trees be running America's space program?” Duffy is a former member of Congress and world champion lumberjack speed climber. He holds a bachelor's degree in marketing and a law degree.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

The SpaceX boss's feud with Duffy may extend beyond the potential loss of the lander contract. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a“power struggle” over who will permanently lead NASA under the second Trump administration. The SpaceX boss has long backed fellow billionaire and private astronaut Jared Isaacman to be in charge of the space agency.

Jared Isaacman had previously been nominated to lead NASA. Photo: NASA / Bill Ingalls

Isaacman was previously nominated by Trump to lead NASA, but his nomination was later withdrawn. The Wall Street Journal report says Isaacman is still in contention to lead the agency. Ars Technica, meanwhile, has reported that Duffy wants to remain in charge.

Whoever is selected will help shape the agency's priorities at a critical time. Opening up the Artemis III lander contract could lead to further infighting between NASA and industry, endangering – rather than accelerating – the schedule. It will also cost money that is badly needed in other parts of the agency, such as its science division. This could, for example, be spent hiring researchers to analyse data from NASA's existing missions.

Defending his company's track record on X, Elon Musk posted:“SpaceX is moving like lightning compared to the rest of the space industry.” He added:“Starship will end up doing the whole Moon mission, mark my words.”

As Sean Duffy posted in response:“Love the passion. The race to the Moon is ON.”

Ian Whittaker is a senior lecturer in physics at Nottingham Trent University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedI
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Faceboo
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsAp
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddi
• Click to print (Opens in new window) Prin