On this day in 1969, Neil Armstrong and “Buzz” Aldrin became the first human beings to step onto another world.

In that historic moment, Armstrong spoke of the “giant leap” the mission represented — and it was. Culminating a breathtaking technological sprint launched by President Kennedy just seven years earlier, the Apollo program inspired generations. And the planting of our flag, though not to claim the moon for ourselves, showed that America was, in many ways, the undisputed leader of the planet.

In 2029, the next people will land on the moon. And while there has been a baffling gap between that incredible moment and these new explorers making the “giant leap” again, it will — once more — transfix the people of Earth and show the world who leads.

I wonder what will be said this time. Whatever it is, it will have to be translated. Because it will be spoken in Chinese, not English.

And yes, once again, the world will understand which nation leads the planet.

How did the country that once epitomized reaching for the stars allow this to happen? Why have we abandoned the High Frontier to bureaucracy, short-term politics and defense contractor kickbacks?

The answer is both complex and simple. Lack of vision. Lack of leadership. A string of administrations and Congresses, reshuffling acronyms, renaming old programs and kicking the lunar can down the road.

Beyond the scientific and technological returns that space brings taxpayers lies something even more profound: the promise of new resources, new homes and new hope for humanity. While expansion into new frontiers is as American as wagon trains and pioneers, it may surprise you to know it’s never been a part of our official space program.

It is, however, central to China’s.

Meanwhile, private U.S. citizens inspired by Apollo have been funding and building reusable rockets that can open the entire solar system to the people of Earth — starting now.

Contrast that to what will soon be seen as one of the greatest boondoggles in U.S. history. Rather than support our homegrown pioneers, Congress has clung to Artemis — a Frankenstein’s monster of political pork built around the Space Launch System (SLS), which costs billions per flight and may —just maybe — fly once a year.

SLS, the Orion capsule, and the Gateway station to nowhere comprise a system that might, possibly, allow a few Moon fly-bys. But it will never support a lasting base, lunar industry or the growth of a U.S.-led off-Earth community.

Don’t just take my word for it — Office of Management and Budget reports, independent watchdogs and even many in NASA agree: Artemis, as planned, is a dead end, even if a couple of launches make it off the pad.

So what? Who cares if China beats us to the moon? Fair question. I’m fine with China having its day under the unfiltered lunar sun. But this isn’t about a symbolic race.

This is a civilizational flex — a broadcast to the planet that they are the ones who build, lead and stay. Their goal isn’t a flag. It’s a footprint followed by a foundation. What some will label a “stunt” will, in hindsight, be seen as the moment China staked its claim in the next chapter of history.

And meanwhile, NASA — once the crown jewel of American excellence — is being gutted to fund more ICE agents. The agency that once sent humans to the moon is now run by a former MTV reality show host.

But don’t panic just yet. There’s still time — if we act now. We need bold leadership and sharp pivots. Here’s how we start:

1. Replace the current NASA Administrator with someone who knows how to deliver, who can manage like James Webb did during Apollo, and who’s willing to take on Congress when needed.

2. End the current Artemis program immediately. Cancel SLS and Gateway. Instead, build on NASA’s successful Commercial Lunar Payload Services model. Back the startups already flying or planning to — Intuitive Machines, Firefly and others like Lone Star and Interlune — and focus on a permanent, U.S.-led lunar industrial village, with an explicit path toward community-building.

3. Let SpaceX go to Mars. They’re aiming for a 2030 flight. Yes, that’s after China’s 2029 landing. So what? We’re headed for a farther shore — and meanwhile, three U.S. commercial space stations and a lunar outpost will be under construction (even if it’s being built by robots).

4. Stop NASA from picking winners and losers among space station developers who then have to meet its onerous and often bespoke standards. Instead, create legislation that lets it be an anchor tenant on multiple platforms — and offer incentives for private-sector customers like chipmakers and biotech firms to join them.

We’re not losing a new space race with China. We’re handing them the Solar System. But we don’t have to. Not if we shed the old ways. Not if we embrace the tools we invented. Not if we empower the minds the giants of Apollo inspired.

We can still lead. Not just in flags and footprints — but in the long game: permanent presence, off-world industry and freedom among the stars.

We must commit — seriously — to opening the frontier. Not in 20 years. Now. And this time, we do it differently. This time, we engage American industry and our global partners’ private sectors — rather than facing a state space program with our own bloated state space program. This time, we don’t define the win by flags and footprints, but by foundations that build the future. And this time — whether in orbit, on the moon, or heading to Mars — we go to stay.

Rick Tumlinson Founded the EarthLight Foundation and SpaceFund, a venture capital firm. He Co-Founded The Space Frontier Foundation, was a founding board member of the XPrize, and hosts “The Space Revolution” on iRoc Space Radio, part of the iHeart Radio Network. His new book “Why Space? The Purpose of People” arrives in June.

SpaceNews is committed to publishing our community’s diverse perspectives. Whether you’re an academic, executive, engineer or even just a concerned citizen of the cosmos, send your arguments and viewpoints to opinion@spacenews.com to be considered for publication online or in our next magazine. The perspectives shared in these op-eds are solely those of the authors.