Bad Moon Falling
- Sean Mahoney
- Sep 4, 2025
- 2 min read
Yesterday’s “Bad Moon on the Rise” Senate Hearing served up a fascinating appetizer of ideas. It was a thoughtful start, but let’s be clear: it was just an appetizer. The Senate Commerce Committee seemed to treat that first course as if it were the entire five-course meal. The problem is that the real main course—the long-term strategy and infrastructure discussion—never truly made it to the table.
It seemed like the organizers started with the result they wanted, then built the best presentation and supporting story to lead to approval for their conclusion - continue the course for SLS.
Now, credit where it’s due: the hearing did highlight some important topics, but they were just appetizers. When we treat these appetizers as the whole meal, we end up with a skewed view. We saw a bias toward a pre-cooked conclusion, one that frames the conversation as simply a race to get to the Moon rather than a thoughtful strategy about building long term economic value.
Here’s the key shift we need: this is not just a competition to the Moon. It’s a competition on the Moon.
We’re not reenacting Lewis and Clark just to prove we can arrive; we’re building the railroads of lunar infrastructure. The real measure of success is who sets up the lasting systems that make the Moon a place of sustained activity and opportunity.
(And yes, it’s fair to ask about the economic value of this new territory. That’s a great question. But in a competitive landscape, we can’t just rely on what we already know. We have to navigate uncertainty, consider multiple possible outcomes, and make decisions that set us up for a range of future scenarios.)
Accepting the premise offered, let’s look at the question of competition with China for the Moon, and the steps that the conversation requires.
Step one: Understand what this space is. The Moon isn’t just a destination; it’s a new territory where the real question is how we use it, not just how we get there.
Step two: Understand the competition. Yes, there’s a strategic rivalry, but it’s not just about who arrives first—it’s about who builds the infrastructure that makes the Moon a lasting hub of activity.
Step three: Understand your alternatives. This means looking at all the possible strategies—public-private partnerships, international alliances, scalable infrastructure, and more.
Step four: Weigh those alternatives and make a decision.
Yesterday’s hearing, unfortunately, (1) missed the correct framing, (2) acknowledged the competition absent sufficient depth,(3) skipped the consideration of approach, and (4) leapt, without logic or reason, to the decision that the hearing was designed to reach.
To lead on the Moon, we need to hit all the steps. Understand the space, understand the nature of the competition, thoroughly evaluate our alternatives, and only then make a strategic decision.
It’s not just about getting there first; it’s about setting the table for a sustainable, long-term lunar future. Let’s not stop at the appetizer. Let’s make sure we serve the full meal.
