In a context of growing global competition, the reconfiguration of the American space plan—aligned with a vision of firm leadership such as that promoted by Donald J. Trump—exposes a central premise: space is no longer just exploration, but power. Faced with the Chinese advance, Washington seeks to avoid any strategic vacuum, even if that means abandoning old free market dogmas in favor of more direct control
.As the year 2030 approaches, the international space scene is moving towards a profound transformation. The imminent withdrawal of the International Space Station (ISS) marks the end of an era of global cooperation and opens the way to a new phase characterized by direct competition between powers. Both the United States and China are already preparing to occupy that space with their own stations, in a context that many already describe as a true “space war”.
In this framework, the United States faces a key challenge: to avoid being left without a presence in low Earth orbit when the ISS is confiscated. Far from being just a technological issue, the problem has an obvious geopolitical dimension. Washington is not willing to give way to the sustained growth of China, which already operates its Tiangong station and continues to expand its capabilities
in space.For years, NASA opted for a strategy based on the promotion of the private sector. Through the CLD (Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations) program, it funded projects such as Axiom, Starlab and Blue Reef with the objective of building a self-sufficient commercial ecosystem in orbit. The idea was that these stations could offer services to governments, companies and even tourists, thus consolidating a dynamic space market
.However, after more than two decades of commercial activity in orbit, the results have not lived up to expectations. NASA itself recognizes that no “revolutionary products” or scalable business models have emerged. Microgravity manufacturing failed to consolidate a solid industry, and space tourism remains a limited promise. In concrete terms, the market has not demonstrated the capacity to sustain orbital infrastructure on its own
.This relative failure not only poses an economic problem, but also a strategic one. If the United States withdraws from low orbit without a robust alternative, the risk of a vacuum in human presence is real. And that vacuum could quickly be filled by China, a scenario that in Washington is considered directly unacceptable
