China’s rapid expansion in orbit and on the Moon has shifted from a distant concern to an immediate strategic headache for Washington. U.S. military and civilian officials now talk about a competitor that is moving faster, taking more risks, and blurring the line between civilian science and military power, even as they decline to spell out publicly what worries them most. The result is a widening gap between the alarm inside classified briefings and the partial, sometimes cryptic explanations offered to the public.
At the same time, Beijing is tightening secrecy around its own setbacks, including a sudden halt to satellite launches, while pressing ahead with ambitious lunar and low‑Earth‑orbit plans. I see a pattern emerging: a space program that is increasingly integrated with China’s armed forces, operating closer to U.S. assets and interests, and wrapped in enough opacity that even seasoned lawmakers say they are not getting straight answers.
China’s space rise is no longer hypothetical
For years, talk of a “new space race” with China sounded like a metaphor. It is now a literal description of how two superpowers are positioning hardware, people, and money beyond Earth. Beijing has already become the first nation to land on and conduct a sample return from the far side of the Moon, a technical feat that signaled both scientific prowess and the ability to operate in places where the United States has no permanent presence. Analysts note that China also has plans for a crewed lunar landing planned by 2030, a timeline that directly overlaps with NASA’s Artemis ambitions.
That lunar push is only one piece of a broader ascent. A growing constellation of Chinese satellites now underpins everything from navigation and communications to intelligence collection and targeting, giving Beijing tools that used to be the sole domain of Washington and Moscow. When I look at the trajectory of China’s space program, the throughline is clear: each new mission, whether framed as scientific or commercial, also expands the country’s ability to project power and gather data far beyond its borders.
Military control tightens behind the scenes
What has changed most dramatically in the past two years is not just what China is launching, but who is in charge. In April, military space was re‑aligned under the Central Military Commission as the Aerospace Force, a bureaucratic shift that effectively puts orbital operations under the same top‑level command that runs the rest of the People’s Liberation Army. U.S. intelligence assessments describe how China has launched 72 G60 satellites as part of its push toward proliferated low Earth orbit, a structure that is inherently more resilient in a conflict.
By folding space forces into the Central Military Commission, Beijing has signaled that it sees orbit as a core war‑fighting domain, not a peripheral support function. The Aerospace Force is now responsible for everything from missile warning to satellite communications, giving Chinese commanders a more integrated picture of the battlefield and the ability to act on it quickly. When U.S. officials talk in guarded terms about “militarization” of space, this is what they mean: a system in which civilian agencies are increasingly overshadowed by a military chain of command that is optimized for speed, secrecy, and strategic surprise.
Orbital maneuvers that look less like tests and more like tactics
On paper, many of China’s recent space activities are described as routine experiments or technology demonstrations. In practice, U.S. officers say they are starting to resemble rehearsals for conflict. The head of Space Forces Indo‑Pacific told an audience in AURORA, Colo that China’s expanding military exercises, aided by an increasingly sophisticated satellite network, are now a central concern for Space Force leaders. From my vantage point, those drills, which span the air, maritime, and cyber domains, are being stitched together by orbital assets that give Space Forces Indo a very different picture of Chinese intent.
At the same time, U.S. analysts are watching a pattern of close approaches and unusual orbital changes by Chinese spacecraft that are hard to square with purely peaceful missions. One detailed assessment described how China’s orbital maneuvers blur the line between peaceful and provocative, with satellites that can inspect, nudge, or potentially disable other spacecraft. These capabilities, which can be used to service friendly satellites or to interfere with adversaries, are exactly the kind of dual‑use tools that make it difficult for U.S. officials to explain what is happening without revealing how closely they are watching.
“Dogfighting” in orbit and the new rules of satellite warfare
What used to be science fiction is now routine: U.S. and Chinese satellites maneuvering around each other in a kind of slow‑motion cat‑and‑mouse game. Much of the early stages of modern satellite warfare has occurred with nations firing missiles from Earth to destroy spacecraft, but the frontier is shifting to close‑in operations where one satellite can jam, blind, or even physically grapple another. A detailed interactive account describes how Much of the emerging contest now involves non‑destructive interference that can still cause physical damage and impairment.
From a policy standpoint, this is a nightmare. There are no widely accepted rules of the road for how close one satellite can approach another, or what counts as an act of war in orbit. When a Chinese spacecraft sidles up to a U.S. military satellite, American commanders have to decide whether it is a benign inspection, a rehearsal for sabotage, or something in between. I hear U.S. officials describe these encounters in classified settings as “dogfights,” but in public they fall back on vague language about “unsafe” or “irresponsible” behavior, in part because acknowledging the full extent of the cat‑and‑mouse would reveal sensitive capabilities on both sides.
Lunar ambitions and the fear of “losing” the Moon
Nowhere is the strategic anxiety more visible than on the Moon. Experts told the Senate Commerce Committee that the U.S. is at risk of ceding its lead in the new space race to China if NASA’s Artemis program falters, warning that whoever establishes the first sustained presence near key lunar resources will shape the rules that follow. One witness framed it bluntly, saying The U.S. is at risk of “losing the Moon” if it cannot match China’s pace and focus.
That warning is echoed in other briefings that describe a Chinese lunar agenda that is more coordinated and less constrained by budget politics than its American counterpart. One analysis argued that The challenges and concerns around China’s lunar plans are not going away, and that Our adversaries have indicated they have no intention of slowing down. When I connect those dots with China’s far‑side sample return and its stated goal of a crewed landing by 2030, the picture that emerges is not just a race to plant flags, but a contest over who will control access to ice, minerals, and strategic vantage points that could support future military or commercial operations.
Congress hears the alarms, but not the full story
On Capitol Hill, the rhetoric around China and space has sharpened, yet lawmakers still complain that the most important details are locked behind closed doors. A recent hearing before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology featured four space industry and China experts who warned that Beijing could beat the United States back to the lunar surface and leverage that lead for geopolitical advantage. One account of the session noted that Yesterday, four space industry and China specialists told the House Committee that the U.S. must move faster on funding, regulation, and partnerships if it wants to stay competitive.
Another briefing framed the stakes in even starker terms, explaining that the December 4, 2025 hearing was convened because the stakes in this hearing are existential for American space leadership. The same analysis warned that Why It Matters is that China is on track to land crews on the Moon and potentially set norms that disadvantage American companies and allies. From my conversations with staffers, there is a growing frustration that classified briefings describe a far more acute threat than what can be discussed in open session, leaving the public with a sense of urgency but few specifics.
Secrecy on both sides: failed launches and quiet moratoriums
Beijing’s own information controls are making that gap even harder to bridge. Earlier this month, China announced the immediate suspension of satellite launch operations after a string of failures, but provided almost no technical detail about what went wrong. One account reported that Recent Satellite Launches Were Declared Unsuccessful and Sealed by Authorities, with China imposing a moratorium framed as a move to improve safety and accountability of the space program.
From a technical perspective, launch failures are a normal part of any ambitious space effort, including America’s. What is different here is the speed and opacity of the response. By sealing information about the mishaps and tightly controlling public messaging, Chinese officials have made it harder for outside experts to assess whether the problem lies with specific rockets, payloads, or broader systemic issues. For U.S. intelligence agencies, that secrecy is a data point in itself, suggesting that some of the affected missions may have been more sensitive than Beijing is willing to admit.
Space, nukes, and a broader arms race with Beijing and Russia
It is impossible to separate China’s space posture from its wider military buildup. U.S. officials now warn that with warheads expected to top 1,000 by 2030, the U.S. risks facing a three‑way nuclear arms race involving Beijing and Russia. A recent briefing on China’s nuclear trajectory noted that With warheads expected to top 1,000 by the end of the decade, Beijing is moving away from a minimal deterrent posture toward something more akin to peer competition.
Space assets are central to that shift. Satellites provide early warning, targeting data, and secure communications that make larger arsenals more usable in a crisis, and they also offer ways to threaten an adversary’s nuclear command and control. When I listen to U.S. strategists talk about the risk of miscalculation with China and Russia, they increasingly describe scenarios in which attacks on satellites, or even ambiguous interference in orbit, could be misread as the opening move in a nuclear exchange. That is one reason officials are so cautious about what they say publicly: acknowledging specific vulnerabilities in space could invite probing by adversaries who are already testing the limits of what they can get away with.
Why U.S. officials are sounding sharper warnings now
Inside the Pentagon, there is a growing recognition that China is not simply copying American space systems, but innovating in ways that exploit U.S. bureaucratic and industrial weaknesses. One senior official described China as the pacing threat and said The Chinese are a concerning adversary, arguing that Beijing’s approach is driven by more than imitation. In that briefing, Meink emphasized that China as the pacing threat is forcing the U.S. to rethink acquisition practices and increase production capacity if it wants to keep up.
Those comments echo a broader shift in tone from U.S. leaders, who now talk less about maintaining “space dominance” and more about surviving in a contested environment where adversaries can strike American satellites quickly and repeatedly. I hear a consistent message: the U.S. must move from bespoke, exquisite systems to larger constellations that can absorb losses, much like the proliferated low Earth orbit plans China is already pursuing. Yet when officials are pressed on specific vulnerabilities or timelines, they often retreat into classified language, citing the need to protect sources and methods. The result is a public debate that is rich in metaphors about “contested space,” but thin on the concrete details that would help citizens understand what is at stake.
The strategic ambiguity that keeps the public in the dark
In theory, democratic accountability requires that citizens know what their government is worried about and why. In practice, space security is becoming a domain where strategic ambiguity is the norm. U.S. officials hint at Chinese capabilities that could disable GPS, blind missile warning satellites, or threaten commercial constellations, but they rarely provide the kind of specifics that would allow outside experts to verify those claims. At the same time, Chinese spokespeople insist their intentions are peaceful, even as China fields satellites that can maneuver close to foreign spacecraft, support troops, and spy on enemies.
From where I sit, that dual opacity is not sustainable. The December hearings that framed the stakes as existential for American space leadership, the warnings that China could beat the U.S. to the Moon, and the quiet reorganization of Chinese forces under the Central Military Commission all point in the same direction: a world in which space is central to military competition, but the public is told only fragments of the story. Until both sides are willing to be more transparent about their doctrines and red lines, the alarms will keep ringing, and officials will keep declining to say exactly why.
More from MorningOverview