Elon Musk vs. Jeff Bezos: The fight for the multi-billion dollar contract that will define who controls the Moon

China, India, and the United States are reviving their lunar programs with less epic and more earthly aims. The natural satellite has become a new geopolitical trophy , where helium-3 and rare earth minerals promise decisive energy advantages.

In this context, NASA returns to Jeff Bezos and leaves Elon Musk with a warning: in the new space arena, no supremacy is guaranteed.

Unlike the race of the 20th century, efficiency and profitability now prevail. NASA seeks alliances that will allow it to reduce operating costs, China continues with its Chang'e module in search of resources of industrial value, and India deploys austere missions that defy budget constraints.

In this context, China is emerging as the United States' main rival, even beyond Earth. With its growing presence on both sides of the Moon , it is challenging the US leadership and pushing NASA to find a competent partner to help it regain its leading role in the emerging space economy.

Sean Duffy, NASA's acting administrator, succinctly summarized the challenge: "The goal is to get there sooner, but also better and cheaper." With that premise, the agency is reopening talks with Blue Origin, even after awarding SpaceX the contract for the Artemis lunar lander.

While the relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk remained stable, there was no doubt about who held the top spot in space contracts. But after political tensions arose, the landscape shifted, and the administration of the then-president faced a decision: continue relying on a single contractor for lunar landings or open the field to competition from the private sector.

The rivalry between Blue Origin and SpaceX matured in the heat of power and ended up revealing more than just technological ambition. Jeff Bezos quietly forged political connections, while Elon Musk distanced himself from the circle where the next steps toward the Moon are being planned.

In April 2021, history seemed to be written: NASA bet on SpaceX and awarded it a $2.89 billion contract for its Starship HLS spacecraft. Blue Origin was left out of the running, and, wounded in his pride, Bezos launched a challenge that was ultimately forgotten, but the dispute was only just beginning.

The excuse for reviewing the contract was that, due to considerable delays in its development – ​​which NASA describes as “behind schedule” – the agency announced in October 2025 its intention to reopen the competition for the Artemis III mission, allowing Blue Origin and others to submit their proposals.

Meanwhile, in May 2023, Blue Origin secured a new contract estimated at $3.4 billion to develop its Blue Moon lunar lander system, which aims to be viable for crewed missions of the Artemis V phase.

The dispute between Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk goes beyond material limits; it is a competition for power, capital, and influence that spans from Earth's orbit to control of the public narrative.

While SpaceX maintains an advantage with proven technology and signed contracts, Blue Origin is consolidating itself as a high-stakes rival, sustained by Bezos' fortune and tenacity, in a contest where success does not always depend on innovation.

Amid these power struggles emerged Sean Duffy, handpicked by Donald Trump as interim NASA administrator. He is a lawyer, television commentator, and reality TV regular—first on MTV and then on Fox. And although he lacks direct experience in the field and his role has not yet been officially confirmed, he is currently mediating the power struggle between the two magnates.

What is clear is that the future of the American lunar project will not be defined solely in laboratories, but also in administrative offices. NASA's decision to reopen the bidding process reflects a political and business strategy: to foster competition in order to accelerate results and solidify its leadership against China.

From a mechanical standpoint, Starship HLS relies on a large, reusable vehicle that requires orbital refueling with cryogenic propellants, a technology still under testing. Blue Moon, on the other hand, proposes a lighter—though less mature—architecture with BE-7 engines powered by liquid hydrogen and oxygen, and cryogenic propellant management systems.

From NASA's perspective, SpaceX's advantage lies in its more advanced timeline and lower cost compared to competitors' initial bids. On the other hand, Blue Origin offers a model that could diversify NASA's industrial base and reduce its reliance on a single supplier.

The disadvantages for SpaceX include its exposure to the technological risks of orbital refueling and the impact of delays on the U.S. lunar strategy. For Blue Origin, the challenge is to demonstrate operational maturity and meet ambitious deadlines to secure the primary mission.

Geopolitical pressure—the urgency to surpass China and demonstrate national lunar exploration capability—adds complexity to decision-making, which explains NASA's recent change of course to consider multiple providers.

Adding to these difficulties is the Orion spacecraft, which continues its slow progress after its only uncrewed flight. Artemis II, now scheduled for 2026, will attempt to orbit the Moon before the first lunar landing in 2027, although most experts doubt that timeline. Without direct competition, it fell into a dangerous technical complacency until Jeff Bezos's arrival reignited the pressure for results.

The SLS rocket, which propels the Orion capsule, became the symbol of a costly delay: reports place its value per launch at at least $4 billion , and since it is not designed to reuse stages, each mission requires a renewed financial effort.

Given this scenario, NASA is considering flying only two more missions with that system before replacing it with commercial alternatives. The entry of Blue Origin as a "private" partner is part of the plan to accelerate the lunar program and regain the initiative that the United States relinquished.