This time they're not racing for a flag and a photograph. They're racing for the resources, the real estate, and the rules that will govern everything that follows. The Moon's south pole holds water ice worth trillions. Whoever gets there first writes the law.
What follows is not a story about rockets. The rockets are the means. The race is about something else entirely: who controls access to the most strategically valuable real estate in the solar system, who extracts what is there, and who writes the legal framework that governs everything that follows. The technology is settled enough. The politics and the law are not. That gap is what this brief is about.
§ 01 — What They're Actually Racing For
The first space race was about flags and propaganda. Two superpowers projecting ideology through rocket exhaust. When Armstrong stepped onto the Sea of Tranquility in 1969, the United States won. The Soviets never recovered. The world moved on.
What is building now is categorically different. The lunar south pole is not a romantic destination. It is a location with specific and extraordinary properties. Billions of years of solar wind bombardment have deposited hydrogen across the lunar surface. In the permanently shadowed craters at the poles — regions that have not seen sunlight in geological time — that hydrogen has combined with oxygen to form water ice. Enormous quantities of it.
Water ice, in the context of space exploration, is not simply water. Split it with electricity — generated by solar panels on the adjacent sunlit ridges — and you get hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen for breathing. Hydrogen for rocket fuel. The south pole of the Moon is, in effect, a petrol station for the solar system. Whoever establishes a permanent, functional presence there first controls access to the single most important logistics node for all deep space travel. Every mission to Mars, to the asteroid belt, to anywhere beyond Earth — runs through the refuelling calculation. The south pole is where the fuel is.
Beyond water ice, the lunar surface contains rare earth elements used in modern electronics, iron, titanium — and helium-3, a rare isotope scattered across the surface by solar winds for billions of years. Helium-3 barely exists on Earth. On the Moon, it is abundant. Its applications: coolant for quantum computers and high-resolution medical imaging systems; neutron detectors in national security scanning infrastructure; and — if fusion power ever becomes practical — an almost-clean fusion fuel producing minimal radiation. China has explicitly named helium-3 mining as a stated goal of its lunar program.
In September 2025, Helsinki-based cryogenics firm Bluefors signed a $300 million agreement with startup Interlune to purchase up to 1,000 litres of lunar helium-3 annually. Two weeks later, Blue Origin announced Project Oasis — a multi-phase mission beginning with orbital mapping of lunar water ice and helium-3 deposits. In mid-2025, the U.S. Department of Energy made the first government purchase of an extraterrestrial resource: three litres of lunar helium-3.
The strategic picture extends further. The Moon, once settled, becomes a base for observations, communications infrastructure, and military vantage points not available from Earth orbit. The high ground of the 20th century was land, then air, then orbit. The high ground of the 21st century is the Moon — and beyond it, the space between Earth and Mars. This is understood explicitly by every government with a serious space program. It is the subtext of every mission announcement, every budget allocation, every alliance agreement.
§ 02 — The Contenders
The United States has the longest demonstrated spacefaring capability, the deepest commercial ecosystem, and — since March 2026 — a newly announced $20 billion initiative designed around one objective: beat China back to the Moon. NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman stated plainly that "the clock is running in this great-power competition, and success or failure will be measured in months, not years."
The Artemis program architecture pairs the government's Space Launch System rocket with commercial landers. SpaceX's Starship is contracted as the primary human landing system for Artemis III, targeting two astronauts on the lunar south pole. Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander is under accelerated development as a parallel capability. The architecture is genuinely novel: NASA sets the destination; the private sector builds the vehicles.
Artemis II, completed April 10, 2026, was a crewed flyby of the Moon — the first humans beyond low Earth orbit since Apollo 17 in 1972. No landing, but the Orion capsule and SLS rocket proven with crew on board. Artemis III — the actual south pole landing — is currently targeting 2028. The timeline has slipped from 2024, then 2025, then 2026. SpaceX must first demonstrate orbital propellant transfer, a critical technical hurdle scheduled for 2026.
The commercial dimension is not separable from the strategic one. Starlink operates nearly 10,000 satellites as of March 2026 — roughly two-thirds of all active satellites in orbit. SpaceX constituted approximately 90% of all mass launched to orbit worldwide in 2024. Its military variant, Starshield, secured over $300 million in U.S. Space Force contracts in less than a year. A single private company, controlled by a single individual, now operates the dominant infrastructure layer for global satellite communications — and is formally integrated into the U.S. military's space architecture.
China's space program is the most consequential development in the new race, and the most underestimated by Western audiences. China's first taikonaut reached orbit in 2003. In 2019, Chang'e 4 became the first spacecraft in history to land on the far side of the Moon. In 2024, Chang'e 6 returned soil samples from the lunar far side — a world first. Chang'e 7, targeted for late 2026, is tasked with surveying the lunar south pole for water ice and resources. Chang'e 8, planned for 2028, is designed to test in-situ resource utilisation — using what is found there, on the surface, to support operations.
China's stated objective is a crewed Moon landing before 2030. The Lanyue crewed lander and Long March 10 rocket — China's equivalents of Starship and SLS — have completed key tests. In February 2026, China's CNSA conducted a successful in-flight abort test: the escape capsule parachuted safely to Earth while the rocket continued its flight and executed a controlled ocean landing using its own engines. Researchers monitoring the program have noted: "They've tried some really ambitious things, and they've all succeeded on the first try."
The longer-term architecture is even more significant. The International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), co-founded with Russia, aims to establish a permanent robotic basic station at the lunar south pole by 2035, with an expanded human-capable facility by 2045. As of 2025, 13 nations had signed on. China is actively recruiting through existing diplomatic blocs — offering Moon access to nations that would never qualify for NASA's more technically demanding partnerships. Beijing is using the Moon to build geopolitical coalitions. Its stated ultimate goal: an "Earth-Moon Space Economic Zone" — a policy document objective, not aspirational language, with a 2045 delivery target.
Russia was the original pioneer. Sputnik. Gagarin. The first spacewalk. None of that heritage is operationally relevant now. Russia's civilian space program has been systematically cannibalised for the war in Ukraine, with rocket components diverted to the defence industry. Its commercial launch business has essentially collapsed.
What remains — and what matters — is Russia's military space posture. In 2021, Russia's anti-satellite weapons test created over 1,500 debris fragments, forcing the ISS crew to shelter in their vehicles. In 2024, Russia deployed an attack-capable satellite into the same orbital slot as a U.S. government satellite. In 2025, Russia used electronic weapons to cause GPS inaccuracies and flight diversions — the first confirmed use of space-based electronic warfare in an active conflict. Russia vetoed the April 2024 UN Security Council resolution on space weapons — the first attempt in history to pass such a measure. Its posture appears to have shifted: if it cannot dominate space, it has the demonstrated capability and apparent willingness to deny it to others.
India's Chandrayaan-3 mission successfully landed at the lunar south pole in August 2023 — the first spacecraft ever to reach the south polar region, and India's entry into the small group of nations that have soft-landed on the Moon. Chandrayaan-4, a lunar sample-return mission, has received government approval. Gaganyaan, India's crewed spaceflight program, is targeting its first crewed launch for 2027. ISRO's chairman has publicly stated the goal of an Indian astronaut on the Moon by 2040.
In 2025, India completed a successful in-orbit docking demonstration — a manoeuvre previously achieved only by the U.S., China, and Russia. India now has that capability. India has signed the Artemis Accords, placing it in the U.S.-aligned coalition — a geopolitically significant choice given its historical non-alignment and its longstanding relationship with Russia. India is also co-developing the LUPEX lunar south pole rover with Japan, targeting the same ice deposits every other major spacefaring nation is now converging on.
Japan's SLIM spacecraft made a successful lunar landing in January 2024. Japan contributes the Lunar Gateway module to Artemis, is co-developing LUPEX with India, and has its MMX mission to Mars's moon Phobos targeted for 2026 launch. The European Space Agency contributed the service module that powered Orion on both Artemis I and II — the propulsion system that got humans around the Moon. Over 60 nations have signed the Artemis Accords.
The pattern is clear: nations are choosing sides. The Artemis Accords coalition — US, Japan, UK, Canada, Australia, India, France, Germany and 50+ others — defines one bloc. The ILRS coalition led by China and Russia defines the other. Two blocs, two incompatible governance frameworks, two resource extraction strategies, converging on the same physical location on the lunar surface.
§ 03 — Orbit Is Already Contested
Before anyone lands permanently on the Moon, the contest in Earth's orbit has already reached a scale most people have no framework to understand. Starlink operates nearly 10,000 satellites — two-thirds of every active satellite in orbit regardless of purpose or nationality. SpaceX was responsible for approximately 90% of all mass launched to orbit in 2024. A single private American company now operates the dominant infrastructure layer for satellite communications on the planet, and it is formally integrated into the U.S. military's space architecture.
The strategic implications are not lost on Beijing. China's response is the GuoWang — "Thousand Sails" — constellation, targeting up to 15,000 satellites by 2030. Shanghai-based SpaceSail, controlled by the municipal government, has already expanded into Kazakhstan and Brazil. China views Starlink not as a commercial service but as a strategic asset of a rival power — which, functionally, is exactly what it is.
In March 2025, the U.S. Space Force released Space Warfighting: A Framework for Planners — defining three main types of counterspace operations, including "orbital warfare" using "fires, movement and manoeuvre to control space." In April 2025, the head of U.S. Space Command publicly called for deploying weapons in space. The Space Force's chief outlined six counterspace capabilities: ground-based kinetic missiles, directed energy, and jamming — plus all three adapted for use from satellites in orbit.
China has developed direct-ascent anti-satellite missiles, ground-based lasers, satellite jammers, and — according to USSPACECOM — a novel microwave weapon capable of targeting satellites, unveiled in 2024. China's 2007 ASAT test created over 3,000 debris fragments that still endanger active spacecraft. Russia deployed an attack-capable satellite into the same orbital slot as a U.S. government satellite in 2024, and used electronic weapons to cause GPS inaccuracies in 2025.
§ 04 — The Timeline
§ 05 — The Legal Vacuum
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is the foundational document of international space law. Signed by 118 nations, it establishes three core principles: outer space is the province of all mankind; no nation may claim sovereignty over the Moon or any celestial body; weapons of mass destruction may not be placed in orbit or on the Moon. A remarkable diplomatic achievement for its time.
It has one critical gap: it says nothing about who owns the resources extracted from the Moon once they are removed from the surface.
The 1979 Moon Agreement attempted to fill this gap, declaring lunar resources the "common heritage of mankind" and calling for an international profit-sharing regime. The problem: none of the major space powers signed it. The United States, Russia, China, India — all absent. The Moon Agreement is dead law.
Into this vacuum, the United States launched the Artemis Accords in 2020 — bilateral agreements now signed by 60+ nations — which explicitly state that "the extraction of space resources does not inherently constitute national appropriation under Article II of the Outer Space Treaty." You can mine the Moon and own what you take. The Accords also introduce "safety zones" around operations that others must avoid. Proponents call this operational necessity. Critics call it territorial claims by another name.
China and Russia have refused to sign the Artemis Accords. They view them — accurately — as a U.S. attempt to set lunar governance rules to American advantage. The 2027 World Radio Communication Conference has over 80% of its agenda devoted to space-related subjects, including spectrum allocation for lunar communications. Whoever sets those norms controls the operating frequencies of the next phase of human civilisation.
The first permanent presence on the lunar south pole creates facts on the regolith. The nation or coalition that establishes functioning resource extraction there first will define what "responsible use" looks like — and what governance framework the rest of the world will be asked to accept as a fait accompli. This is the oldest dynamic in human expansion. The rules of the frontier are written by those who get there first and stay.
§ 06 — The Two Blocs
The two blocs are not competing scientific programs. They are incompatible visions of who governs cislunar space and on what terms. Every delay in the Artemis timeline is not a scheduling inconvenience. It is a shift in who sets the terms of the framework the rest of the world will live under.
§ 07 — The Collision Course
NASA's roadmap and China's roadmap converge on the same physical location. The permanently shadowed craters at the lunar south pole — Shackleton, de Gerlache, Sverdrup-Henson — are small. The ice deposits are concentrated. The sunlit ridges adjacent to them, essential for solar power generation, are limited. This is not a large territory being divided between two civilisations. It is a handful of crater rims from which a functioning base is possible. And every major spacefaring nation has now announced its intention to build one there.
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming sovereignty over the Moon. It does not address what happens when two permanent installations from rival superpowers are operating in the same small resource zone, with no agreed governance framework, no binding dispute resolution mechanism, and active military space doctrines on both sides describing each other's satellites as legitimate targets in a conflict.
China's stated concept of an "Earth-Moon Space Economic Zone" has no parallel in existing international law. The United States' Artemis Accords "safety zones" are exclusion zones dressed in the language of operational necessity. Both sides are building structures that amount to sovereignty in practice, without using the word — because the 1967 treaty prohibits the word.
The April 2024 UN Security Council resolution that would have affirmed the obligation to keep weapons of mass destruction out of space was vetoed by Russia and rejected by China. The first attempt in history to pass such a measure. Failed. In that same year, Russia deployed an attack-capable satellite into the same orbital slot as a U.S. government satellite. These are not isolated events. They are the visible surface of a confrontation developing faster than the institutions designed to manage it.
§ 08 — Updated June 2026: The Craters, Named
The most common follow-up question to this brief asks which crater each side has chosen — on the assumption that the US and China are racing for different real estate, each with its own trade-offs. The honest answer is more unsettling than that. Look at the actual mission documents, and there is no meaningful "each side picked a different crater" story to tell. NASA's own preferred Artemis III site and China's own preferred Chang'e 7 site are the same ridge, on the same crater rim, separated by a rounding error in the coordinates.
NASA's leading Artemis III candidate site is named, internally, "Peak Near Shackleton." China's preferred Chang'e 7 landing site — confirmed via a presentation to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space — is the permanently illuminated peak next to Shackleton crater, at 123.4°E, 88.8°S. A peer-reviewed journal article covering the Chang'e 7 site selection states plainly that the area "possibly corresponds to" NASA's Artemis 3 candidate site. This is not two nations choosing different ground. It is two space agencies independently arriving, using different instruments and different orbiters, at the conclusion that one specific ridge is the best piece of real estate on the entire Moon — and both intend to be the one standing on it.
There is a second, genuinely distinct site in play, but it belongs to a later mission, not a rival claim on the same ground. China's follow-up Chang'e 8 mission and NASA's own VIPER rover and IM-2 commercial lander have all separately targeted a different formation entirely: Mons Mouton, a flat-topped mountain near Nobile crater, previously known as "Leibnitz Beta." This gives an actual basis for comparison — not US versus China, but the sharp ridge everyone wants first, versus the broad plateau everyone is using as the fallback.
China's Chang'e 8 mission designer has named four candidate regions under consideration for the later, base-building phase of the program: Leibnitz Beta (Mons Mouton), Amundsen crater, Cabeus crater, and the ridge connecting Shackleton and de Gerlache craters. Notice that even China's own backup list keeps circling back to terrain immediately adjacent to Shackleton. The pattern holds at every level of the decision: there simply aren't many places on the Moon where sunlight and ice coincide well enough to build on, and every serious space program — American, Chinese, Indian — has independently converged on the same short list.
§ 09 — What This Means for Australia
Australia signed the Artemis Accords — placing it explicitly in the U.S. coalition, with all the strategic commitments that entails. The Pine Gap facility in the Northern Territory is a joint U.S.-Australian intelligence and satellite ground station whose functions include satellite tracking and communications intercept — directly relevant to the military space architecture being built by the U.S. Space Force. Australia's Southern Hemisphere geography makes its ground stations particularly valuable for orbital tracking and relay.
Australia's satellite dependency is also the question. Critical infrastructure — financial systems, agriculture, navigation, emergency services, defence communications — runs on satellite infrastructure. Starlink, which Australia has adopted at scale for remote communications and defence applications, is controlled by a single private individual. The strategic dependency that creates — on a commercial entity rather than a sovereign partner, with no Australian governance over its operational decisions — is a question that has not been adequately examined in the public domain.
When the U.S. Space Force describes "counterspace operations" and "orbital warfare" in its planning documents, and China is developing the capability to neutralise satellite constellations, Australia's position as a major Starlink user, Artemis Accords signatory, and host of joint facilities places it inside the contested zone — not as a bystander, but as a participant.
The standard narrative frames this as a technological contest — who has the bigger rocket, the faster timeline. The technology matters. But what the technology is in service of is a legal and political contest over who controls the most valuable real estate in the solar system and the frameworks governing everything extracted from it. The Outer Space Treaty says nobody owns the Moon. What 2026, 2028, and 2030 will answer — in practice, through physical presence and the political facts that flow from it — is who controls access to what the Moon contains. That is a different question. And it does not yet have an answer.
§ 10 — Updated June 2026: War, Weapons Law, and the Real Counter-Strategy
Two questions keep arriving in response to this brief, and both deserve a direct answer rather than a hedge.
On the war question: every source consulted for this update — congressional testimony, the Naval War College, the Belfer Center, independent space policy analysts — describes this as a contest for prestige, diplomatic leverage, and the power to set governance norms, not a march toward armed conflict on the lunar surface. The closest thing to a stated military risk is reputational: NASA's own administrator warned that if China's "taikonauts" are seen on the Moon before American astronauts return, "the blow to American exceptionalism will be so damaging, the shock wave will be felt around the world." That is a statement about prestige and alliance-building, not a statement about war.
A common assumption is that "space weapons are banned." This is not accurate, and the gap matters. Article IV of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans only nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction — anywhere in orbit, on the Moon, or on any celestial body. Separately, it bans military bases, fortifications, weapons testing, and military manoeuvres specifically on the Moon and other celestial bodies.
What it does not ban: conventional weapons stationed in Earth orbit. Anti-satellite (ASAT) missile tests. Ground-based lasers aimed at satellites. Electronic jammers. Directed-energy weapons. The United States, Russia, China, and India have all destroyed their own satellites in ASAT tests — legally, because the treaty does not cover this. A 2022 UN General Assembly resolution created a voluntary, non-binding moratorium on destructive ASAT tests. It is not law. Russia vetoed the one serious attempt, in April 2024, to pass a binding UN Security Council resolution on the subject.
The PAROS treaty — which would close this gap entirely by banning any weapon of any kind from orbit — has been proposed since the 1980s and remains stalled in the UN Conference on Disarmament. The United States has consistently declined to give the relevant committee a negotiating mandate, stating as far back as 1990 that it "has not identified any practical outer space arms control measures that can be dealt with in a multilateral environment."
§ 11 — The Actual Counter-Strategy
If the plan isn't war, what is it? Both sides have published, public-facing doctrine answering exactly this question — and the two approaches are structurally different.
The U.S. Space Force's chief of space operations has stated plainly that the Defense Secretary's goal is for the U.S. military to "dominate" in space, and that "the Space Force was created to do just that." The declared strategy rests on three pillars: space domain awareness (knowing what's up there), resilient architecture (surviving an attack), and counterspace capability (deterring or defeating one).
The most significant shift is moving away from a small number of expensive, vulnerable satellites toward "Proliferated Warfighter Space Architectures" — hundreds of cheap satellites in a mesh network, where destroying any single one is operationally irrelevant. This lesson was learned directly from Ukraine, where Russian electronic warfare failed to permanently silence Starlink precisely because of its scale. A "Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve" is being stood up to give the military wartime access to commercial satellite networks on contract — formalising the role companies like SpaceX already play.
Six categories of declared counterspace weapons are now publicly acknowledged: ground-based and orbital kinetic missiles, directed energy, and jamming. The $25 billion "Golden Dome" missile defence initiative is explicitly described by the Defense Secretary as requiring new "space-based capabilities."
China's approach is not to out-build the U.S. satellite for satellite — a contest it would currently lose on raw numbers and commercial capacity. Instead, analysts describe China's strategy using the term "assassin's mace": asymmetric capabilities specifically designed to negate the advantages of a technologically superior opponent rather than match them directly.
Operationally, this has meant direct-ascent ASAT missiles, ground-based lasers, satellite jammers, and — per U.S. Space Command — a novel satellite-mounted microwave weapon unveiled in 2024. China's space operations are centralised under a single military command, the PLA Strategic Support Force, which U.S. officials note gives it an organisational speed advantage over the more fragmented U.S. structure split across military, commercial, and civil space agencies. China's own satellite fleet exceeded 1,060 by mid-2025, with hundreds dedicated to surveillance and reconnaissance — and its own "Thousand Sails" mega-constellation is explicitly modelled on the resilience logic of Starlink.
Neither government's actual published strategy is "invade the Moon" or "shoot down the other side's astronauts." Both strategies are built around the much older logic of Cold War deterrence: build enough resilience that an attack on your assets doesn't work, and enough offensive capability that the other side knows an attack would cost them too. The Space Force's own posture statement to Congress makes this explicit — "to maintain deterrence, we cannot just rely on a resilient or defensive posture" — but deterrence, not conquest, is the stated goal on both sides of the table.
What should concern a careful reader is not an imminent war. It is the speed at which "space is a warfighting domain" has gone from a contested claim to an uncontroversial, repeated line in official U.S. and Chinese military doctrine, in barely five years — while the legal framework meant to govern that domain has not meaningfully moved since 1967.
Tune in: shinysideout.com.au ◆ For the full audio breakdown and the conversation they don't want had in the open ◆
Sources: NASA official mission documentation · AIAA Aerospace America (May 2026) · Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (May 2026) · Lowy Institute (April 2026) · The Diplomat (February 2026) · SpaceNews — "China's Chang'e-7 moon mission to target Shackleton crater" (Jan 2024) · The Planetary Society — Chang'e-7 mission overview · Space.com — "Chang'e 7 to Start Searching for Lunar Water Ice" · Wikipedia — Chang'e 7, Chang'e 8, Mons Mouton, Shackleton (crater), VIPER (rover) · ScienceDirect / iScience — "Sverdrup-Henson crater: A candidate location for the first lunar South Pole settlement" · NASA Artemis III candidate landing regions press materials and LPSC 2026 site down-selection presentation · USGS — VIPER landing site prospectivity modeling · Christian Science Monitor (April 2026) · Prospect Magazine (April 2026) · IR Insider · U.S. Space Force Space Warfighting Framework (March 2025) · USSPACECOM public reporting and 2026 Posture Statement to the House Armed Services Committee · Space.com — Senate Commerce Committee hearing "There's a Bad Moon on the Rise" (Sept 2025) · Gizmodo expert roundtable (March 2026) · Defense News — "Space warfare in 2026" (Jan 2026) · Washington Times (Feb 2026) · Outer Space Treaty (1967), full text and Arms Control Association factsheet · NTI — PAROS Treaty backgrounder · UN Office for Disarmament Affairs · Lexin Legal — "Militarization of Outer Space: Legal Gaps" · ZME Science · Interesting Engineering · Britannica Space Race Timeline · New Space Economy (April 2026) · GovFacts · University of Mississippi Air and Space Law Program · U.S. Department of Energy procurement records · Bismarck Analysis (March 2026) · Indian Space Research Organisation · NewSpace India · Communications Today India. All claims sourced from publicly available, verified primary or institutional sources. This is analysis. This is information. What you do with it is your choice.