Why the U.S. doesn't need to beat China to the Lagrange points
As U.S.-China space competition heats up, there’s growing pressure to “win the race” to cislunar Lagrange points, but that framing misses a few things. Last week I released an op-ed in SpaceNews on why the U.S. doesn’t need to beat China to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points. Takeaways below for folks who don’t have a subscription:
🛰️⚪️ 1. Lagrange points aren’t chokepoints
Spacecraft don’t occupy the specific Lagrange point; they orbit and operate around them. The usable regions around Lagrange points span tens of thousands of kilometers.
For example, the Earth-Moon L2 operational zone is larger than Earth.
See my previous post with astrophysicist Garrett Levine for a deeper dive into the physics of Lagrange points.
The “real estate” of a Lagrange point is an empty volume of space; there are no ports, straits, “high ground” or any geographic features to control.
🥇🥈 2. First-mover advantages are minimal
Lagrange points are better understood as open commons than contested terrain, where arriving first won’t exclude competitors.
The regions can easily accommodate large numbers of spacecraft even with conservative spacing.
These regions are so large that trying to deny access would be like trying to blockade the entire Pacific Ocean—prohibitively expensive and practically impossible.
Therefore, beating China would not necessarily limit China’s ability to use Lagrange points, and vice versa.
✅♟️ 3. Symbolic milestones ≠ strategic value
The real prize isn’t planting a flag first (not that you could at an invisible point in space anyway). As former NASA Associate Administrator Bhavya Lal argues, we must “distinguish between symbolic milestones and strategic ones” - getting to Lagrange points first is symbolic, not strategic.
What matters is building best-in-class communications and logistics infrastructure, fostering thriving commercial space ecosystems, and establishing norms aligned with our interests
👉 Full piece here.
