The Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees NASA, recently held a hearing with the colorful title of “There’s a Bad Moon on the Rise: Why Congress and NASA Must Thwart China in the Space Race.”

As the title suggests, the committee convened to examine the possibility that China might actually be the first country back to the moon and what could be done about it.

What is the Chinese threat, in the view of the committee, and how can the U.S. thwart it? The consensus of the witnesses was that a return to the moon would derive enormous benefits in a number of areas.

Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine referred to these benefits as “DIME” — short for “Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic.” The country that returns to the moon will be the preeminent power on Earth for a long time to come.

The witnesses noted some of the economic benefits of space exploration, not only of the moon, but of low Earth orbit.

Mike Gold, president of civil and international space for Redwire, noted that his company has flown numerous experiments on the International Space Station that lead the way for advanced pharmaceuticals and growing of human organs.

Another topic that arose was the mining pf helium 3, an isotope with great promise for nuclear fusion, from the moon.

A return to the moon also has national security implications. The moon is, in some ways, the “high ground” which allows the country that occupies it to exert both hard power (military) and soft power (diplomatic and information).

The U.S. must be the nation that leads the world back to the moon. If China is that nation, the results will be catastrophic, considering that country’s totalitarian government and its imperialistic drive to dominate the Earth.

Both the witnesses and the members of the committee were disappointingly vague on solutions for preventing the Chinese from beating the U.S. back to the moon. Several talked about a “grand strategy” for space, encompassing not only the moon but also low Earth orbit and beyond. Details were lacking on what this grand strategy would be.

More than one participant mentioned the need for adequate and consistent funding, something that lacking during previous attempts to return to the moon. 

Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) mentioned continuity of architecture, avoiding what he viewed as a “premature” pivot from the Orion/Space Launch System to purely commercial vehicles. 

Gold and Bridenstine were particularly supportive of the Lunar Gateway, a lunar orbital space station they suggested would enhance lunar surface operations.

Nuclear power also came in for some praise. The witnesses touted the recent decision by Interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy to build a lunar surface nuclear power plant and get it to the moon by 2030.

Bridenstine took note of the one technology that may well prevent NASA and its partners from beating China back to the moon. The SpaceX Starship Human Landing System is far away from being operational enough to take astronauts to the lunar surface and back. 

The things that the human landing system will have to do, including multiple refueling missions in low Earth orbit, makes the vehicle too complex to quickly become a lunar lander, in his view. 

Bridenstine suggested that had he (or anyone) been NASA administrator when a lunar lander had been selected, the human landing system would not have made the cut.

Nevertheless, the Starship Human Landing System is the lander selected to return astronauts to the moon. No prospect exists of a last-minute substitution that would be ready in time.

Barring SpaceX’s Elon Musk pulling a rabbit out of his hat or the Chinese faltering, the U.S. is in peril for a “Sputnik moment” on steroids.

As mentioned in a previous article, what happens next depends on whether the U.S. reacts in the same way as it did in the wake of the Soviet Union’s first artificial satellite.

A flags and footsteps mission to the moon will be a fleeting victory for China if NASA and its partners follow with a permanent moon base.

The future of the world depends on wise, clear-eyed policy that takes a temporary defeat and presses on to the ultimate victory.

Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond” and, most recently, “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.