The United States is running out of margin for error in the new race to the moon. As delays mount and political fights drag on, a former NASA chief is warning that unless Washington resets its lunar strategy now, China could seize the initiative on the lunar surface and define the rules for the next era of space power.
That warning is not about nostalgia for Apollo, it is about hard timelines, fragile technology plans, and a rival that is moving methodically toward its own crewed landings. The question is no longer whether America can plant another flag, but whether it can do so on a schedule and with a strategy that keeps it ahead of a determined competitor.
Griffin’s blunt verdict: Artemis is off track
Former NASA administrator Michael Griffin has emerged as one of the sharpest internal critics of America’s current moon strategy, arguing that the Artemis program has drifted so far off course that it may need to be rebuilt from the ground up. In his view, the United States has “lost a lot of time” chasing architectures that are too complex, too fragile, and too vulnerable to cascading delays, a combination that risks ceding the initiative to a rival that is not waiting around for Washington to get its act together. Griffin’s core point is simple: if the United States wants to lead on the moon, it needs a plan that can actually be executed on the timescale that geopolitics now demands.
Griffin has not limited his criticism to vague warnings about bureaucracy. He has argued that NASA and its contractors have locked themselves into a lunar landing approach that depends on multiple unproven systems working perfectly in sequence, from heavy-lift rockets to refueling depots, and that this is a recipe for schedule slips that will “level the playing field to others.” In his telling, the United States is voluntarily giving up the advantage it built with Apollo by accepting a design that is more elegant on paper than reliable in practice, a concern he has tied directly to the risk of losing the moon race to China.
China’s steady march toward the lunar surface
Griffin’s alarm only makes sense when set against the pace and focus of China’s own space program. Beijing has treated the moon as a strategic objective, not a prestige project, building a step-by-step campaign that runs from robotic landers to sample return missions and, ultimately, to a permanent presence on the lunar surface. That methodical approach is backed by a centralized political system that can lock in long-term funding and priorities in a way that Washington’s annual budget battles often cannot, giving China a structural advantage in sticking to its timelines.
Chinese planners have already demonstrated their ability to execute complex lunar operations, including the Chang’e series of missions that have landed on both the near and far sides of the moon and returned samples to Earth. Those successes are not abstract; they are the foundation for a future crewed landing and a broader push for lunar resource utilization and scientific outposts. When U.S. officials warn that China could arrive first at key polar regions rich in water ice, they are reacting to a track record that is visible in every new Chinese mission profile, not to hypothetical scenarios.
Artemis delays and the risk of losing the initiative
Against that backdrop, the Artemis program’s schedule problems look less like routine growing pains and more like a strategic liability. The U.S. Artemis program faces mounting delays from bureaucracy, technical issues, and funding woes, and each slip pushes the first crewed landing further into a window where China’s own plans could mature. The longer the United States takes to field a reliable lunar architecture, the more plausible it becomes that Beijing will be the first to establish a sustained presence at the most valuable sites.
Those delays are not just about rockets and landers, they are about governance. Critics have pointed to the need for clearer accountability measures and penalties to enforce timelines, arguing that without real consequences for missed milestones, Artemis will continue to drift. The warning is stark: if the United States does not tighten management and stabilize funding, the combination of technical hurdles and bureaucratic inertia could hand the moon race to a rival that is not hampered by the same constraints, a concern captured in detailed assessments of how Artemis is currently managed.
Starship, refueling, and a fragile lunar architecture
One of Griffin’s most pointed critiques targets NASA’s reliance on a single, highly ambitious commercial system to carry astronauts to and from the lunar surface. The agency’s bet on a massive, fully reusable lander that must be refueled in orbit before heading to the moon concentrates risk in a vehicle that has yet to prove it can meet those demands. If that system stumbles, the entire Artemis landing sequence could be pushed back, regardless of how well other components perform.
Analysts have highlighted a series of Starship Problems that illustrate the scale of the challenge. To send astronauts to and from the moon, Starship will have to refuel in Earth orbit and land under conditions that leave little room for error, a chain of operations that multiplies the chances for delay. Griffin’s argument is that unless something changes in this architecture, it is “more likely than not” that the United States will watch China reach key lunar milestones first, a concern echoed in warnings that NASA’s bet on Starship may inadvertently give the moon race away.
NASA leadership pushes back on defeatism
Inside NASA, not everyone accepts the narrative that the United States is destined to be second back to the moon. The agency’s interim administrator, Sean Duffy, has been explicit that he will not allow the story of this era to be one in which China beats America back to the lunar surface. His frustration is not just with outside critics, but with the idea that the outcome is already fixed, a view he has rejected in public remarks that frame the moon race as a contest the United States still intends to win.
Duffy’s comments followed tense exchanges on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers pressed NASA on whether its current schedule could realistically deliver a crewed landing before China. He has responded with a mix of defiance and urgency, signaling that the agency understands the stakes and is working to accelerate critical milestones. When he says he will be “damned” if the story ends with China planting its flag first, he is speaking as a leader who sees the moon as a test of national resolve, a stance that has been captured in detailed coverage of how NASA is responding to doubts about its timeline.
Political pressure from Capitol Hill
Congress is not watching this debate from the sidelines. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a bipartisan group of senators with the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation have warned that China could surpass the United States in the space race if Artemis continues to slip. Their concern is not only about prestige, but about who sets the norms for resource extraction, military uses, and commercial activity in cislunar space and on the lunar surface itself.
These lawmakers have zeroed in on the technical hurdles that threaten NASA’s timeline, from new spacesuits to lander readiness, and have pressed the agency to explain how it will keep the United States on track to land astronauts on the moon before China. The message from Capitol Hill is that delay is not a neutral outcome; it is a strategic loss. By tying Artemis performance to broader questions of national power, figures like Sen. Ted Cruz and his colleagues on the Senate Committee are raising the political cost of failure.
Artemis under strain: shutdowns, suits, and slipping schedules
Even as the rhetoric heats up, the day-to-day reality inside NASA is one of engineers fighting to keep critical work moving under difficult conditions. During recent government funding standoffs, teams working on Artemis II pressed ahead despite the uncertainty, aware that every lost week could ripple through the schedule for years. Their efforts underscore how fragile the program’s timelines have become, and how easily political gridlock in Washington can translate into technical risk on the factory floor and in the test stand.
Beyond immediate operations, the broader implications for U.S. space leadership are profound. With China’s Chang’e program advancing, any slowdown in Artemis threatens to erode America’s ability to shape the future of lunar utilization and scientific discovery on the Moon. Analyses of the current situation have warned that the United States is effectively testing whether it can sustain a complex exploration program in the face of recurring shutdown threats, a stress test that has left NASA engineers carrying a burden that should be shared by policymakers.
Lessons from Apollo’s relentless cadence
For Griffin and other veterans of earlier eras, the contrast with Apollo is instructive. The Apollo program, by comparison, launched each of its 11 missions an average of once every 4.5 m months between 1968 and 1972, a tempo that reflected both political urgency and a willingness to accept calculated risk. That cadence was not just a feat of engineering, it was a statement about national priorities, backed by budgets and authorities that gave NASA the ability to move fast and correct course without restarting the entire program.
Today’s Artemis effort operates in a very different environment, with more complex safety standards, a larger web of contractors, and a political system that revisits NASA’s budget every year. NASA’s current acting administrator has pointed to the need for budgetary stability and staff stability as prerequisites for matching anything like Apollo’s pace. The lesson is not that the United States should copy the 1960s, but that it must recognize how far its current processes are from the conditions that once made rapid progress possible, a point underscored in detailed comparisons between The Apollo era and today.
Cost overruns, suits, and the strain on Artemis
Money is another fault line running through the Artemis debate. Unfortunately, the viability of the Artemis timeline has been called into question because of delays and cost overruns in several areas, including new spacesuits that are essential for any surface operations. Each overrun forces NASA to reshuffle priorities, delay tests, or seek additional appropriations from a Congress that is already divided over spending, creating a feedback loop in which technical problems feed political resistance and vice versa.
These financial strains are not limited to one contractor or subsystem; they reflect a broader pattern in which major aerospace projects routinely exceed their initial estimates. For Artemis, that pattern is particularly dangerous, because it intersects with a geopolitical clock that is ticking regardless of how long it takes to fix a suit or redesign a component. Analyses of the future of American aerospace have warned that unless cost control improves, the United States will struggle to sustain the kind of long-term exploration program that lunar leadership requires, a warning that has been applied directly to Artemis.
Competing narratives: crisis or confidence?
While Griffin and his allies frame the situation as a looming crisis, other leaders are trying to project confidence. Over the summer, Sean Duffy, acting administrator of NASA, declared that “We’re going to win today’s space race, and tomorrow’s space race,” a line that captured his belief that the United States still has the industrial base, talent, and political backing to stay ahead. He has tied that optimism to specific milestones, including a 2027 mission that he has described as very much “in play,” signaling that NASA is not quietly lowering its ambitions.
That confidence is not just rhetoric; it is part of a broader effort to reassure international partners and domestic stakeholders that Artemis remains viable despite its challenges. By insisting that the United States will prevail in both the current contest and whatever comes next, Duffy is trying to counter the narrative that China’s rise is inevitable. His comments, delivered in a high-profile interview, have been widely cited as evidence that NASA’s leadership is determined to frame the moon race as a winnable competition, a stance captured in coverage of how Sean Duffy is selling Artemis to the public.
What “starting over” would really mean
Griffin’s call to “start over” with America’s moon plans is not a demand to abandon Artemis entirely, but a push to rethink its most fragile assumptions. In practical terms, that could mean diversifying the lander architecture so that no single vehicle or refueling scheme can hold the entire program hostage, simplifying mission profiles to reduce the number of critical steps, and aligning schedules with realistic assessments of technical risk. It could also mean rebalancing the mix of government and commercial roles to ensure that NASA retains enough control to enforce standards and timelines without stifling innovation.
Such a reset would require political courage, because it would involve admitting that some past decisions were flawed and that sunk costs cannot dictate future strategy. It would also demand a new compact between the White House, Congress, and NASA that treats lunar leadership as a long-term national priority rather than a talking point that shifts with each election cycle. For Griffin, the alternative is clear: if the United States continues on its current path without significant course corrections, it risks waking up to find that China has already claimed the most valuable ground on the moon, a scenario that would validate the most pessimistic assessments of how far Former NASA leaders believe the country has already fallen behind.
The stakes: rules, resources, and reputation
Behind the technical debates and political sound bites lies a larger question about who will write the rules of the road for the lunar frontier. The first nation to establish a sustained presence at the moon’s poles will have a powerful voice in shaping norms for resource extraction, traffic management, and even military activity in cislunar space. If China arrives first with a robust infrastructure, it will be in a position to set precedents that others must either accept or challenge from a position of weakness.
For the United States, that prospect turns Artemis from a science program into a test of strategic credibility. Allies that have signed on to the Artemis Accords are watching to see whether Washington can deliver on its promises, while competitors are gauging whether American timelines are real or aspirational. The choice facing U.S. leaders is whether to treat Griffin’s warning as a wake-up call or as just another voice in a long-running debate. Either way, the clock is ticking, and the moon will not wait for Washington to decide how badly it wants to lead.
More from MorningOverview