Every few months, another headline warns that China might “beat” the United States to the moon. Lately, the concern has widened to include Mars Sample Return. The worry is understandable. But the framing is misleading. It assumes that every “first” matters equally. That is simply not true.
Some milestones do confer long-term advantages. Being the first to access lunar ice, deploy a fission reactor on the moon, or establish deep-space navigation capabilities can help a country shape the operational and regulatory environment for decades to come. These actions influence who gets to operate in space, on what terms and under what norms. Other firsts do not offer the same payoff. A rushed crewed landing on some easy-to-get to terrain on the moon may win headlines but little else. Worse, it can drain resources from projects that could deliver lasting capability.
The core problem is not that we are reacting to China. It is that we have not developed a clear filter for determining which “firsts” truly matter and which ones do not. Until we do, our space priorities will remain vulnerable to political cycles, media pressure and short-termism. More fundamentally, we haven’t laid out a strategy for long-term advantage in space. Without that, we will continue to confuse urgency with importance.
What strategic firsts actually create
Some “firsts” create leverage.
Consider the first operational nuclear reactor on the moon. Whoever deploys it first will not just heat and power surface operations. They will set the ground rules for how reactors operate in space: who approves, how we coordinate safety zones and how nuclear safety is generally enforced off-Earth. In the same way, the first to build interoperable deep-space navigation may shape technical standards that others must adopt. The first to enable reliable in-situ resource utilization on the lunar surface could similarly control a critical gateway for sustaining long-term presence.
In other words, a “first” only matters if it endures. Planting a flag without building infrastructure that others rely on is not leadership, it’s a photo op. Strategic firsts create systems that others use, norms that others follow and services that others trust.
These types of firsts matter because they allow the initiator to shape the infrastructure and the rules others must navigate. They define how future missions get done, what systems others have to plug into and which pathways remain open or closed.
We have done this before. The U.S. was the first to deploy the Global Positioning System, and that strategic first created a backbone for global navigation, military operations and civil applications. To this day, the U.S. controls a system that the world depends on. Even countries with their own constellations must interoperate with GPS. That first gave the U.S. lasting influence, through standards, dependence, and trust.
China appears to understand this. Its approach to space is long-term, disciplined and seems tied to broader national objectives. The International Lunar Research Station, a planned surface reactor and the deployment of a telescope on the lunar far side are not just for the sake of science or prestige. They are steps toward establishing technical infrastructure and international alignment that could shift the balance of power in space. China’s “theory of victory” is clear: shape the architecture early, and others will have to adapt to it.
Where the U.S. falls short
The U.S. remains the world leader in space, but it is becoming increasingly reactive. “Beat China” has become a reliable all-purpose justification for unchecked spending across the board. But too often, it substitutes for strategy. In recent years, we have seen frequent shifts in the scope and timeline of the Artemis program to adjust for China’s ambitions. The Mars Sample Return mission, once championed for its scientific value, is now being debated through the lens of geopolitical urgency.
In other words, we are chasing headlines instead of building advantages that last. This dynamic weakens our position. It signals to partners and adversaries alike that our plans are malleable. It creates brittle programs that are difficult to sustain through changes in leadership. And it undercuts the strategic advantage we are trying to defend: long-term credibility and leadership.
Filter “firsts” through value
What we need is a sharper filter for determining which “firsts” merit urgency and which do not. Five questions can help guide this process:
- Does it leave something behind that others must navigate? Some missions fade when the headlines do. Others change the environment by creating systems, setting standards or anchoring future operations.
- Does it shift how other countries respond? Does it draw partners closer, shape alliances or push competitors to adjust their plans not because we asked, but because we acted?
- Is it tied to a goal that defines our future in space? Missions that support power, mobility, navigation and resource use are not side projects. They’re core to economic strength, national security and global leadership.
- Does it shape decisions others will have to make for years to come? Strategic firsts don’t just influence the moment. They force other nations to work within the reality we’ve built.
- Does it matter if someone else is first? Would it give them leverage over norms, access or markets? Would we be forced to follow their lead or find ourselves boxed out?
This last filter may be the most important, and perhaps the most overlooked. Imagine a future in which China is the first to build and operate a logistics hub in lunar orbit. It powers the system with surface-based solar or nuclear power, and offers frequent, low-cost launches to the moon. Lunar payloads from other nations dock with Chinese infrastructure. Lunar timekeeping, navigation signals and safety coordination are all mediated through Chinese systems. Even if we pioneered some of those technologies first, we would now be playing on China’s field, by its rules. Allies may be free to work with us, but integrated into China’s logistics chain. This is the plausible outcome of treating every first as a PR goal instead of a strategic milestone.
These questions aren’t boxes to check. They are a means to weigh real consequences. If a “first” shapes the environment, shifts others’ behavior, advances a core objective and would hurt us to lose, then it likely deserves urgency. If it fails on all fronts, it may not be worth the race.
Strategic patience, tactical urgency
We should not chase speed for its own sake. But neither should we assume that taking our time will guarantee a better outcome. The art of strategy is knowing when to move fast and when to go slow.
We need to distinguish between symbolic milestones and strategic ones. If we continue treating space as a collection of individual programs, each meant to do something first instead of a unified strategy, we will defeat ourselves from within. China doesn’t need to out-innovate us. It just needs to outlast our attention span.
The U.S. has succeeded when it has aligned technical excellence with institutional focus. GPS reflected a strategic throughline: investments that create dual-use capability, generate economic returns and reinforce U.S. leadership.
We can do that again. But it will require more than slogans, applause lines or reactive plans. It will require knowing which races are worth winning and why. Not every “first” matters. But some matter a lot.
Our space strategy should be built around knowing the difference.
Bhavya Lal is the former Acting Chief Technologist and Associate Administrator for Technology, Policy, and Strategy at NASA.
This article first appeared in the August 2025 issue of SpaceNews Magazine.
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.