COLUMN: The Moon No Longer Belongs to NASA—It Belongs to Two Billionaires

Two empires, zero countervailing power

Let’s face it. Elon Musk controls SpaceX, which is developing the Starship HLS—a lunar lander seven times larger than the Apollo lander. Jeff Bezos controls Blue Origin, which is developing the Blue Moon—twice the size of the historic modules. Together, these two men hold a duopoly on human access to the lunar surface. There is no Plan C. If Musk and Bezos fail, no one lands on the Moon. NASA knows this. Congress knows this. The Trump administration knows this. And everyone acts as if this were normal.

“Partners” Who Dictate the Timeline

Kent Chojnacki, a senior NASA official in charge of lander development, explains that the new systems are “enormous compared to those of Apollo.” What he doesn’t say is that NASA has no leverage to enforce deadlines. When SpaceX racks up delays on the Starship, NASA can’t award the contract to someone else. When Blue Origin pushes back its deadlines, the space agency negotiates, pleads, makes half-hearted threats—and then waits. The balance of power has shifted. It’s no longer the billionaires who are working for NASA. It’s NASA that depends on the billionaires.

A maneuver that has never been tested with humans on board

Here lies the crux of the technical problem—the one that the triumphant Artemis II press releases have carefully avoided. To get the giant lunar landers to the Moon, they must be refueled in space. Not on the ground. Not on a launch pad. In Earth orbit. This means first sending the lunar lander, then launching several additional rockets loaded with propellant, docking them in zero gravity, transferring tons of cryogenic fuel in the vacuum of space—and only then firing the engines toward the Moon.

What “never tested” really means

As of April 2026, this maneuver has never been performed. Not once. Not by SpaceX. Not by Blue Origin. Not by anyone on this planet. Transferring cryogenic fuel in microgravity poses challenges related to thermodynamics, pressure, system contamination, and orbital alignment that simply have no precedent in space history. And yet, NASA plans to test an in-orbit rendezvous in 2027 and land astronauts on the Moon in 2028. Clayton Swope of the Center for Strategic and International Studies sums up the situation with admirable diplomatic restraint: “That seems like a very short timeframe to me.”

The Impossible Timeline

Let’s recap what needs to happen between now and 2028 for Artemis III to become a reality. First: SpaceX and Blue Origin must successfully complete an orbital refueling—a world first. Second: an uncrewed lunar lander must be sent to the Moon and land there successfully to prove the system’s safety. Third: an orbital rendezvous between Orion and the lunar lander must be tested and validated. Fourth: all of this must be certified for crewed flight. Each of these steps represents a major technical challenge. Taken together, in less than twenty-four months, they represent an industrial miracle—or a political timeline disconnected from reality.

The shadow of China is accelerating everything—and jeopardizing everything

China wants to send taikonauts to the Moon by 2030. And that sentence alone explains why Washington is willing to take risks that prudence would otherwise forbid. The Trump administration cannot bear the thought of a Chinese flag being planted on the lunar surface before the American flag returns. The race to the Moon is no longer a scientific quest—it’s a geopolitical showdown. And in a showdown, you don’t push back deadlines. You speed things up. Even when the technology isn’t ready. Even when the tests haven’t been done. Even when human lives are at stake.

When the agency threatens to switch horses

In the fall of 2025, faced with SpaceX’s chronic delays on the Starship, NASA dropped a quiet bombshell: it was considering reopening the contract to use Blue Origin’s lunar lander first, relegating Musk’s to second place. The effect was immediate. It sent shockwaves through the private space industry. SpaceX announced it was realigning its priorities. Blue Origin accelerated its timeline. Both companies suddenly developed a keen sense of urgency.

Proof that the leverage exists—but that NASA is hesitant to use it

This sequence reveals something fascinating. NASA has leverage—the threat of redistributing contracts. But it uses it only as a last resort, like a weapon that’s brandished but never fired. Why? Because switching primary suppliers would cost additional years. Because there is no credible third option. And because the billions already invested in the two programs create a momentum that even the Chinese threat is not enough to break. NASA is a prisoner of its own choices.

Kent Chojnacki is reassuring, but details are lacking

When asked what will happen if the in-orbit refueling fails, the NASA official says, “We have a plan, and it works.” ” That statement is meant to be reassuring. It does exactly the opposite. A plan that works doesn’t need to be asserted—it proves itself. When a NASA engineer says, “We have a plan,” it usually means: we have a PowerPoint presentation and a backup scenario that hasn’t been tested either. And yet, the lives of four future astronauts rest on this verbal assurance.

The secret alternative that no one is talking about

What is this alternative? No one knows for sure. NASA has not publicly detailed its Plan B for orbital refueling. Some analysts speculate about scaled-back configurations—less fuel, meaning less time on the Moon, and thus less ambitious missions. Others suggest a return to smaller lunar landers, abandoning the dream of a permanent lunar base. In any case, Plan B looks a lot like an admission of failure disguised as pragmatism.

What NASA Promises

The stated ambitions are staggering. Four astronauts on the lunar surface, compared to two for Apollo. A stay lasting several weeks, compared to a maximum of three days. A base on the surface, complete with pressurized habitats, rovers, and systems for producing oxygen from lunar ice. Jack Kiraly of The Planetary Society is right to describe the Apollo missions as “camping trips.” What Artemis promises is a city—or at least a village.

What technology allows today

And yet, as of April 2026, no Artemis lander has touched down on the Moon’s surface. No orbital resupply has taken place. No lunar habitat exists anywhere other than in spectacular 3D renderings. The gap between rhetoric and reality isn’t a gap—it’s a canyon. NASA is talking about a permanent base when it hasn’t even proven it can land yet. It’s like announcing the construction of a skyscraper when the foundation hasn’t even been laid. The vision is magnificent. The execution is lacking.

A European propulsion module, but no European voice

One detail consistently flies under the media’s radar: the European Service Module (ESM), manufactured by Airbus on behalf of the European Space Agency, is the component that propels Orion. Without the ESM, there would be no Artemis mission. Europe is literally the engine of the spacecraft carrying the astronauts. And yet, not a single European is part of the Artemis II crew. No Europeans are scheduled for the first lunar landing missions. Europe manufactures, finances, and delivers—and waits its turn.

Space geopolitics is playing out without us

This situation illustrates a brutal balance of power. The United States needs European technology, but it has no intention of sharing the glory. The Moon is a political trophy, and trophies aren’t shared. The ESA knows this. European governments know it. But the alternative—developing an independent lunar program—would cost tens of billions that no one in Europe is willing to commit. So Europe continues to build someone else’s engine and calls it a “partnership.”

Musk and Political Interference

Here’s what should be keeping every NASA official up at night. Elon Musk isn’t just the CEO of SpaceX. He’s the owner of Platform X, a major political player in the Trump era, and a man whose public statements influence markets, elections, and international relations. When the development of Starship falls behind schedule, is it because rocket physics is difficult—or because Musk’s attention is divided among six companies, a social media platform, and his involvement in the politics of several countries?

Bezos and the Logic of Profit

Jeff Bezos founded Blue Origin in 2000 with the motto “Gradatim Ferociter”—step by step, with ferocity. Twenty-six years later, the company has never reached orbit with a heavy-lift launch vehicle. The New Glenn, its next-generation rocket, has faced repeated delays. Blue Origin is a private company, funded by Bezos’s personal fortune, which means it is accountable to no one—not shareholders, not taxpayers, and not voters. If Bezos decides tomorrow that the Moon is no longer profitable, what happens? And yet, it is this man who has been entrusted with half of the U.S. lunar program.

The Myth of Private-Sector Efficiency

The prevailing argument is well known: the private sector does it better, faster, and cheaper. SpaceX has revolutionized orbital launches with its reusable rockets. Blue Origin promises technological breakthroughs. All well and good. But there is a fundamental difference between launching commercial satellites and sending human beings to another world. In the former, failure costs money. In the latter, failure costs lives. And when lives are at stake, the logic of profit and the logic of safety collide head-on.

What America Has Given Up Without Saying So

The decision to outsource the lunar landers to the private sector did not stem from a bold vision. It stemmed from a recognition of budgetary failure. NASA did not have the funds to simultaneously develop the SLS, Orion, and a government-run lunar lander. Rather than asking Congress for funding commensurate with its ambition—as Kennedy had done for Apollo—the agency chose the path of political expediency. Less public money, more risk transferred. The taxpayer pays less. Citizens have less control. And if something goes wrong, responsibility will be diluted among a federal agency and two private companies in an impenetrable legal fog.

Beijing is moving methodically forward while Washington improvises

China does not outsource its lunar program to billionaires. The CNSA—the Chinese space agency—designs, builds, and tests its own systems within a unified chain of command. No complex orbital resupply missions. No dependence on capricious contractors. No lucrative contracts that could be renegotiated. Ironically, the Chinese approach resembles that of NASA in the 1960s: a mobilized government, a clear objective, massive resources, and centralized leadership.

The race is between two models—and America has chosen the more fragile one

The real issue isn’t which flag will be planted first. It’s which model of space exploration works best in the long run. On one hand, an integrated government program—slow but consistent. On the other, a program fragmented between a weakened agency and private actors with divergent agendas. If China lands taikonauts on the Moon before the Americans return, it won’t be because its engineers are better. It will be because its system is simpler.

“We Are on the Verge of Losing the Moon”

In September 2025, three former NASA senior officials published an op-ed in SpaceNews with a headline that sounded like a wake-up call. They weren’t criticizing the science. They weren’t questioning the astronauts. They were pointing to a structural issue: the Artemis program, in its current form, is too dependent on stakeholders over whom the agency has no real control. Delays are piling up. Costs are skyrocketing. And every month lost is a month gained by China.

A warning ignored by those who should be listening

These three officials were not outside commentators. They had led programs. They knew what they were talking about. And their message was crystal clear: if America wants to return to the Moon, it must regain control of its own program—or accept that the Moon will be claimed by someone else. Six months later, the situation hasn’t changed. NASA still depends on Musk. NASA still depends on Bezos. And the Moon is still waiting.

Everything that comes after that is beyond the agency’s control

Here’s the truth that triumphant press conferences will never reveal. Artemis II is potentially the last major milestone in the program that NASA controls from start to finish. The SLS rocket: NASA. The Orion capsule: NASA (with the European ESM). The flight around the Moon: NASA. But starting with Artemis III, the scenario changes radically. The Moon landing depends on SpaceX or Blue Origin. Resupply depends on SpaceX or Blue Origin. The mission’s success or failure depends on SpaceX or Blue Origin.

NASA has become a passenger in its own program

And yet, it is NASA’s name that will be associated with any potential failure. Not Musk’s. Not Bezos’s. If a lunar lander crashes, the headlines won’t say “SpaceX fails”—they’ll say “NASA fails.” The agency bears public responsibility without having operational control. It’s the worst possible scenario: all the blame, none of the power.

Space exploration is not a product line

There is something deeply disturbing about the fact that humanity’s return to the Moon depends on the goodwill of two men whose combined wealth exceeds the GDP of a hundred countries. Space is not a market. The Moon is not an asset. Exploration of the solar system is not an investment opportunity. It is—or should be—the purest expression of what humanity can achieve when it collectively decides to push its boundaries.

What We Lose When Space Becomes Private

When Apollo 11 landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969, 600 million people watched live. It was not the triumph of Grumman (the builder of the lunar module) or North American Aviation (the builder of the command module). It was the triumph of all of humanity. If Artemis III succeeds, whose triumph will it be? NASA’s? SpaceX’s? Elon Musk’s personally? The narrative will be fragmented, privatized, and commodified. And something essential—the sense that the Moon belongs to all of us—will have been irretrievably lost.

A Program Balancing Engineering and Fragility

Artemis II is a true technical feat. Engineers at NASA, Lockheed Martin, and Airbus Defence and Space have done remarkable work. The four astronauts have shown a courage that most of us will never truly understand. None of the above diminishes their achievement. But celebrating a success does not exempt us from looking ahead with clear-eyed realism.

The question no one wants to ask

And what comes next is a gamble. A gamble on untested technologies. A gamble on billionaires whose priorities shift with their whims. A gamble on a timeline that even experts deem unrealistic. A gamble on an outsourcing model that transfers risk without transferring control. The Moon is there, 400,000 kilometers away, exactly where it has always been. But the path to returning there no longer belongs to us. It belongs to two men in two offices, with two checkbooks and two worldviews that have nothing to do with ours.

On Friday, four astronauts returned home. The world applauded. And somewhere in a hangar in Texas and another in Florida, two giant rockets are waiting to be completed by two billionaires who are accountable to no one.

The Moon can wait. It has eternity ahead of it.

We, however, do not.

Signed, Jacques PJ Provost