Race to the Moon

How the tracker works

Method version 1.0. The tracker answers two questions and never mixes them: who has demonstrated more of what a landing and a permanent base need (facts only), and who is projected to land first (a model of each programme’s schedule record). There is no composite score out of 100: the ladder position is the score. Every number on this page is computed from the same data module that draws the ladders, so the page cannot drift from the tracker.

Data reviewed against sources as of 23 Sep 2026 · Tracker method v1.0 · All dates UTC unless a local time is shown

Two goals

Crewed landing: At least one person on the lunar surface, returned to Earth alive.
Permanent presence: Continuous human occupation of a lunar surface site for at least 365 days. No agency’s label decides it: NASA says "permanent outpost" and the ILRS says "long-term robotic operation with short-term human participation"; we measure both against this definition.

Evidence states — the only partial-credit rule

How much a rung scores, by the kind of evidence
Credit	State	Evidence required	Examples
0	Planned	Announced, contracted, in design, or tested only at subsystem or component level.	A contract award; a named vehicle; an engine test.
¼	Integrated ground or atmospheric test	A flight-configuration article of the element (or its designated test article) tested as an integrated system on Earth, confirmed by the agency.	A lander’s integrated landing-and-takeoff test; a crew-capsule abort test; a stage’s low-altitude flight; a flight article that has completed integrated testing and been delivered to the launch site.
½	Flown, short of the criterion	The element flew in space, but not to the rung’s criterion.	Suborbital instead of orbital; high Earth orbit instead of lunar distance; a landing that tipped over; a demonstration inside one vehicle instead of between two.
1	Complete	The rung’s exact criterion is met and confirmed under the evidence rules.	—

Evidence rules

Counted: confirmation from the operating agency (NASA, CMSA, CNSA, ESA, JAXA) or the contracted company for its own hardware — manufacturer releases count on both sides (SpaceX, Blue Origin, Axiom; CASC, CALT, CAST); official state media quoting the agency; peer-reviewed results; or independent physical observation (tracking data, public imagery, a received signal).
Dating only: reputable trade press may date or describe an event the agency has confirmed. On its own it cannot establish the event; without agency confirmation we need two independent trade sources plus physical evidence.
Not counted: statements that something "has been developed", leaks, intelligence claims, unsourced social media and prediction markets.
Unannounced progress scores 0 until confirmed, for both countries. We never estimate hidden progress.
Family rule: evidence counts from the element, a test article designated for it, or a same-family vehicle (sharing primary structure and main propulsion and officially described as a variant, precursor or prototype). Same-family evidence is capped at ½ for flights and ¼ for ground tests. Unrelated heritage vehicles are shown as context and never scored — for either country.
One event may support several rungs only where each rung tests a different aspect (a launcher stage vs a lander; landing vs ascent). We list the shared evidence on each card.
Weakest link: when a rung needs several elements, it scores the lowest of them.
Architecture designation: we score the lander under contract for the mission; if the agency designates two landers for the mission, we score the more advanced. Architecture changes are logged.

Opacity: CMSA generally announces tests after they are completed. NASA and US companies generally announce target dates in advance, so their misses are more visible. The ladder counts only confirmed events, so it may lag real Chinese progress; the schedule model has more US data points and fewer Chinese ones. Conversely, failed ground tests are rarely disclosed in China while failed US flights are public. That does not bias the ladder — credits never go down — but it does bias how risk is perceived.

Every rung, both countries, with the evidence

Levels under the published family rule. Where the reviewed method changed a draft level, the draft level is shown.

Crewed landing

L1 · Landing launchers reach orbit

Criterion: Every launch vehicle the official architecture uses for a landing mission has reached Earth orbit (or trans-lunar injection) at least once in the configuration that will fly it. A same-family variant sharing its core stage scores at most ½.

CN China Flown, short of the criterion — ½(draft v0.1: ¼)

The three-core lunar Long March 10 has not flown. Its single-core family variant, the 10B, reached orbit. Family cap: ½.

Scored10 Jul 2026 — Long March 10B reached orbit and its booster was caught by net. It is a single-core variant of the Long March 10 family with a 5 m, seven-engine first stage like the Long March 10 core; its second stage is methalox where Long March 10 uses kerolox.
Sources: Scientific American (10 Jul 2026) · Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)
Context11 Feb 2026 (11 Feb 2026, 11:00 BJT) — The Long March 10 first stage flew a low-altitude (suborbital) demonstration — ¼ on its own.
Sources: China National Space Administration (11 Feb 2026) · China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (11 Feb 2026)
ContextNo CASC primary source says the 10B core is identical to the lunar Long March 10 core. Read literally, the draft’s wording would have given this rung 1; the family rule caps it at ½.
Sources: Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)

US United States Flown, short of the criterion — ½

SLS has reached trans-lunar injection; Starship — the lander and tanker launcher — has flown only suborbital. Weakest link: Starship.

Shares evidence with L4 (each rung tests a different aspect).

Scored1 Apr 2026 — SLS reached trans-lunar injection on Artemis I and Artemis II.
Sources: NASA (read 23 Sep 2026) · NASA (20 Apr 2026)
Scored24 Jul 2026 — Starship V3 — the configuration for HLS and the tankers — flew suborbital Flights 12 and 13. No Starship flight has reached orbit.
Sources: Space.com (22 May 2026) · Space.com (Jul 2026) · NASA Office of Inspector General (IG-26-004) (10 Mar 2026)
ContextNET 28 Sep 2026 — Flight 14, the first planned orbital flight, is NET 28 Sep 2026, 12:15 UTC.
Sources: Space.com (updated 17 Sep 2026)

L2 · Crew vehicle: uncrewed lunar round trip

Criterion: The crew spacecraft flies uncrewed to lunar distance (a lunar flyby or orbit) and its crew module is recovered after a lunar-return-speed re-entry.

CN China Flown, short of the criterion — ½

A precursor of Mengzhou flew to high Earth orbit, not lunar distance, and was recovered. Family cap: ½.

Scored8 May 2020 — The new-generation crew spacecraft test article reached about 8,000 km apogee and returned from a high-speed re-entry (5–8 May 2020).
Sources: Xinhua (8 May 2020) · Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)

US United States Complete — 1

Artemis I flew Orion uncrewed around the Moon and recovered it after a lunar-return re-entry.

Scored11 Dec 2022 — Artemis I: 16 Nov – 11 Dec 2022, 25 d 10 h 53 min.
Sources: NASA (read 23 Sep 2026) · NASA NSSDCA (updated 10 Jul 2025)

L3 · Crew beyond low Earth orbit

Criterion: The crew spacecraft carries people to lunar distance and returns them safely.

CN China Integrated ground or atmospheric test — ¼

Mengzhou has done integrated abort tests on Earth; no crewed flight beyond low Earth orbit yet.

Scored17 Jun 2025 (12:30 BJT) — Mengzhou pad-abort test at Jiuquan.
Sources: China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (17 Jun 2025) · gov.cn (Xinhua) (17 Jun 2025)
Scored11 Feb 2026 — Mengzhou max-Q abort during the Long March 10 low-altitude flight (prototype hardware).
Sources: China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (11 Feb 2026) · China National Space Administration (11 Feb 2026)

US United States Complete — 1

Artemis II carried four people around the Moon and home.

Scored11 Apr 2026 (10 Apr 2026, 8:07 pm EDT) — Artemis II launched 1 Apr 2026, 22:35:12 UTC and splashed down 11 Apr 2026, 00:07:27 UTC (10 Apr, 8:07 pm EDT).
Sources: NASA (20 Apr 2026) · NASA (mission blog) (10 Apr 2026) · NASA (Administrator Isaacman remarks) (27 May 2026)

L4 · Crew lander flown in space

Criterion: The designated crew lander, or a test article of the same design, flies in space. Earth orbit counts.

CN China Integrated ground or atmospheric test — ¼

Lanyue has done an integrated landing-and-takeoff test on Earth; it has not flown.

Shares evidence with L6 (each rung tests a different aspect).

Scored6 Aug 2025 — Lanyue’s landing module and propulsion module completed an integrated landing and takeoff test at Huailai (announced 7 Aug).
Sources: China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (7 Aug 2025) · gov.cn (Xinhua) (7 Aug 2025)

US United States Flown, short of the criterion — ½(draft v0.1: ¼)

Starship HLS itself has not flown, but Starship ships — the design family HLS derives from — have flown in space. Family cap: ½.

Shares evidence with L1 (each rung tests a different aspect).

Scored24 Jul 2026 — Starship ships have reached space on 13 flights (10 successful, per the Wikipedia launch list). Flights 12–13 flew V3, which the OIG calls "the third version of the lander".
Sources: NASA Office of Inspector General (IG-26-004) (10 Mar 2026) · Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary) · Space.com (Jul 2026)
ContextNo HLS-specific flight has happened. The Starship flights also carry the US L1 score, because the ship is both a launcher stage and the lander (disclosed under the one-event-several-rungs rule).
Sources: NASA Office of Inspector General (IG-26-004) (10 Mar 2026)
ContextBlue Moon MK1 is a cargo pathfinder, not the crew lander. A "Blue Moon Mark 2 HLS pathfinder" docks with Orion on Artemis III (2027); that flight would move L4 and L5.
Sources: NASA (13 May 2026) · Aerospace America (AIAA) (15 Sep 2026)

L5 · Critical in-space operations

Criterion: Every in-space operation the architecture depends on has been done once between the actual flight vehicles: propellant transfer between ships, crew-vehicle-to-lander docking, lunar-orbit rendezvous (whichever apply).

CN China Planned — 0(draft v0.1: ½)

Mengzhou and Lanyue have never flown, and no docking between them is confirmed. Robotic dockings used different spacecraft.

Context6 Dec 2020 — China has twice performed autonomous lunar-orbit rendezvous and docking robotically (Chang’e 5, 6 Dec 2020; Chang’e 6, June 2024). That is heritage, not the actual flight vehicles; heritage is not scored for either country (US Crew Dragon dockings are not scored either).
Sources: China National Space Administration (19 Dec 2020) · China National Space Administration (Xinhua) (28 Jun 2024)

US United States Flown, short of the criterion — ½

Propellant has moved only inside one ship; Orion has not docked with a lander. Weakest link: ½.

Scored14 Mar 2024 — Starship Flight 3 moved propellant "between two tanks within the Starship vehicle" — the ½ example. The ship-to-ship test, planned for March 2025 and then March 2026, has not been attempted.
Sources: NASA Office of Inspector General (IG-26-004) (10 Mar 2026)
Scored2 Apr 2026 — Orion flew a manual proximity-operations demonstration around the spent upper stage on Artemis II; it has not docked with a lander.Unconfirmed
Sources: Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)
Context2027 (NASA target: mid-2027) — Artemis III, a docking test with both landers’ pathfinders in Earth orbit: "2027 (NASA target: mid-2027)".
Sources: NASA (release 26-048) (9 Jun 2026) · NASA ESDMD (3 Mar 2026)

L6 · Uncrewed landing by the crew lander

Criterion: The crew-lander design soft-lands on the Moon without crew and, if the architecture requires ascent, ascends to lunar orbit.

CN China Integrated ground or atmospheric test — ¼(draft v0.1: 0)

The Lanyue test is an integrated landing and takeoff test of a crew-lander test article — the method’s own ¼ example.

Shares evidence with L4 (each rung tests a different aspect).

Scored6 Aug 2025 — Lanyue integrated landing and takeoff test (landing plus ascent aspects).
Sources: China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (7 Aug 2025) · gov.cn (Xinhua) (7 Aug 2025)

US United States Planned — 0

No US test has shown landing and ascent of an HLS article.

Context10 Mar 2026 — The Starship HLS uncrewed demo was expected "to slip to the end of 2026" (OIG, March 2026); it now depends on first orbit and ship-to-ship transfer.
Sources: NASA Office of Inspector General (IG-26-004) (10 Mar 2026)
Context5 May 2021 — A 2021 Starship prototype (SN15) landed after a 10 km hop but did no ascent; it is credited only under the lenient reading.
Sources: Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)

L7 · Lunar surface suit flown

Criterion: The lunar EVA suit is used in space. An integrated ground or thermal-vacuum qualification of a flight-configuration suit scores ¼.

CN China Planned — 0(draft v0.1: ¼)

No qualification of the Wangyu suit has been announced; under the opacity rule it scores 0.

Context12 Feb 2025 — Wangyu named 12 Feb 2025.
Sources: gov.cn (Xinhua) (12 Feb 2025)
ContextA "final prototype" is reported for the end of 2026 (attributed to Yang Liwei; the report’s date is unverified).Unconfirmed
Sources: China in Space (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)

US United States Planned — 0(draft v0.1: ¼)

No integrated flight-configuration suit exists yet; development tests do not qualify.

Context23 Jul 2026 — GAO: the suit programme’s key decision point is deferred and the suit "does not meet several sizing requirements"; a combined design review is planned for fall 2026.
Sources: U.S. GAO (GAO-26-108556) (23 Jul 2026)
Context20 Apr 2026 — NASA OIG: Artemis and ISS suit demonstrations "may not occur until 2031" if delays follow the historical average.
Sources: SpacePolicyOnline (20 Apr 2026)

L8 · Crewed landing

Criterion: At least one person stands on the lunar surface and the crew returns to Earth alive. The goal is achieved on the landing date.

CN China Planned — 0

Not yet. Official target: "before 2030" (2030年前).

Contextbefore 2030 (2030年前) — Restated by CMSA on 27 Feb and 23 May 2026.
Sources: China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (27 Feb 2026) · China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (23 May 2026) · gov.cn (Xinhua) (23 May 2026)

US United States Planned — 0

Not yet. Official target: Artemis IV, "2028 (NASA target: early 2028)".

Context2028 (NASA target: early 2028) — Artemis IV: first crewed landing since 1972; lander not yet designated.
Sources: NASA (RELEASE 26-022) (27 Feb 2026) · NASA ESDMD (3 Mar 2026) · NASA (updated 16 Mar 2026)

Permanent presence

P1 · South-polar robotic landing

Criterion: A soft landing poleward of 80°S; the lander is upright and operating, and returns surface data for at least 24 hours.

CN China Integrated ground or atmospheric test — ¼

The Chang’e-7 flight article was delivered to the launch site and stacked on its rocket, then postponed. The weakest evidence on the board — see the fragility note.

Scored19 Aug 2026 — Chang’e-7 fully delivered to Wenchang by the evening of 9 Apr 2026; stacked on Long March 5 Y14 and rolled out on 19 Aug 2026.
Sources: China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (10 Apr 2026) · China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (19 Aug 2026)
Context23 Aug 2026 — Postponed out of the 2026 window on 23 Aug 2026; no cause, no new date. Reported target near the rim of Shackleton crater. China’s earlier landings were all equatorward of 46°S.
Sources: China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (23 Aug 2026) · NASA NSSDCA (updated 10 Jul 2025)

US United States Flown, short of the criterion — ½

Two commercial landings near the south pole, both tipped over — the ½ example.

Scored22 Feb 2024 — IM-1 Odysseus landed at Malapert A (80.13°S per Wikipedia) and came to rest tilted after breaking a leg; it operated for about a week.Unconfirmed
Sources: NASA APOD (24 Feb 2024) · NASA Science (updated 6 May 2026) · Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)
Scored6 Mar 2025 — IM-2 Athena landed in a crater near Mons Mouton and lay on its side; the mission ended the next day.
Sources: NASA (release 25-025) (7 Mar 2025)

P2 · Dedicated lunar relay

Criterion: A relay spacecraft in lunar orbit or at a lunar libration point is operating and supports surface or far-side users.

CN China Complete — 1

Queqiao-2 is operating in lunar orbit and has supported Chang’e 4 and 6.

Scored20 Mar 2024 — Queqiao-2 launched 20 Mar 2024 and supports Chang’e 4 and 6; Queqiao (2018) sits at the Earth–Moon L2 point.
Sources: Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary) · NASA NSSDCA (updated 10 Jul 2025)

US United States Planned — 0

No US lunar relay is operating.

Contextsecond half of 2027 — ESA’s Lunar Pathfinder relay rides on Blue Ghost 2 ("later in 2027"). CAPSTONE and LRO are not relays.
Sources: Aerospace America (AIAA) (15 Sep 2026) · NASA Science (updated 6 May 2026)

P3 · ISRU demonstrated on the Moon

Criterion: A volatile such as water is extracted from regolith and measured on the surface, or a product (oxygen, metal, a construction element) is made from regolith on the Moon. Sample return does not count.

CN China Planned — 0

Nothing flown yet.

Contextabout 2028 — Chang’e-8 will test 3-D printing bricks from regolith, "around 2028" (Pakistan’s SUPARCO says 2029).
Sources: gov.cn (Xinhua) (7 Sep 2024) · Dawn (13 Aug 2026)

US United States Flown, short of the criterion — ½

An ISRU payload flew and operated on the surface; no lunar volatile was extracted or measured. ½ — and thin.

Scored6 Mar 2025 — PRIME-1 on IM-2: the TRIDENT drill "rotated … extended to its full range … percussion system performed a hammering motion"; the mass spectrometer ran, but "the gases detected were all anthropogenic".
Sources: NASA (Mar 2025) · NASA (release 25-025) (7 Mar 2025)

P4 · Power through the lunar night

Criterion: A surface power system delivers at least 10 kWe continuously through a complete lunar night. Heater units that only let a spacecraft survive the night do not count.

CN China Planned — 0

No surface power system has flown.

Context8 May 2025 — A China–Russia lunar power plant: memorandum 8 May 2025; Roscosmos said a reactor by 2035 (2024) and ILRS completion by 2036.
Sources: Interfax (12 May 2025) · Reuters (via Yahoo) (23 Apr 2025)

US United States Planned — 0

No surface power system has flown.

Context18 Dec 2025 — EO 14369: "a lunar surface reactor ready for launch by 2030"; directive: at least 100 kWe, launch-ready by Q1 FY2030.
Sources: The White House (Executive Order 14369) (18 Dec 2025) · NASA (Acting Administrator directive) (4 Aug 2025)

P5 · Crew-capable surface habitat

Criterion: A pressurised habitat or pressurised rover designed for crew is operating on the surface. Partners’ assets count toward the programme whose official architecture includes them.

CN China Planned — 0

No crew-capable habitat or pressurised rover exists on the surface.

Context2035 — ILRS "basic model" by 2035.
Sources: China National Space Administration (Xinhua) (24 Apr 2025) · gov.cn (Xinhua) (7 Sep 2024)

US United States Planned — 0

No crew-capable habitat or pressurised rover exists on the surface.

ContextJAXA pressurised rover in Moon Base Phase 2 (2029–2032); ASI multi-purpose habitats and a CSA utility vehicle in Phase 3 (2033 and beyond).
Sources: SpaceQ (24 Mar 2026) · European Spaceflight (2 Apr 2026)

P6 · Cadence

Criterion: Two crewed landings at the same base region within 12 months.

CN China Planned — 0

Requires crewed landings.

US United States Planned — 0

Requires crewed landings.

P7 · 30-day crewed stay

Criterion: One crew stays on the surface for 30 or more consecutive days.

CN China Planned — 0

Requires crewed landings.

US United States Planned — 0

Requires crewed landings.

P8 · Continuous presence, one year

Criterion: The surface site has been continuously crewed for 365 days — measured the way ISS occupancy is measured. The goal is achieved on day 365.

CN China Planned — 0

No official date for continuous occupation.

ContextILRS: "long-term robotic operation with short-term human participation".
Sources: gov.cn (Xinhua) (7 Sep 2024)

US United States Planned — 0

No official date for continuous occupation.

ContextEO 14369: "initial elements of a permanent lunar outpost by 2030". NASA’s phase plan starts long-duration presence in 2033 or later.
Sources: The White House (Executive Order 14369) (18 Dec 2025) · SpaceQ (24 Mar 2026)

Scoring and the lead call

Ladder credit is the sum of the eight rung levels (0–8). All rungs weigh the same.
Weakest link: a rung that needs several elements scores the lowest of them.
If a country meets a goal’s final rung, it has achieved that goal, on that date.
Otherwise a difference of 1 full rung or more reads “[Country] leads on demonstrated milestones”; less reads “Level on demonstrated milestones”.

Crewed landing: China 1.75, United States 3.5 of 8 — United States leads on demonstrated milestones.

Permanent presence: China 1.25, United States 1 of 8 — Level on demonstrated milestones.

Sensitivity: the same evidence under four readings

If a different but reasonable rule set would flip a call, this table would show it.

Ladder totals under each reading (computed)
Reading	Rules	Landing CN	Landing US	Landing call	Presence CN	Presence US	Presence call
Family rule (published)	The element, a designated test article, or a same-family vehicle (capped at ½ for flights, ¼ for ground tests). Unrelated heritage is context only.	1.75	3.5	United States leads on demonstrated milestones	1.25	1	Level on demonstrated milestones
Strict	Only the element or its designated test article counts; no family or heritage credit.	1.25	2.5	United States leads on demonstrated milestones	1.25	1	Level on demonstrated milestones
Draft v0.1 as written	The mixed standards of the unreviewed draft.	2	3.5	United States leads on demonstrated milestones	1.25	1	Level on demonstrated milestones
Lenient	Family rule plus heritage demonstrations and development suit tests.	2.5	4	United States leads on demonstrated milestones	1.25	1	Level on demonstrated milestones

China’s P1 quarter rests on the Chang’e-7 flight article being delivered to the launch site and stacked — the weakest evidence on the board. Without it, presence is level at 1.0 each; the call ("level") does not change. (China presence without it: 1.)

The draft method also proposed a check weighting rungs by their historical duration. It is not published yet because that duration data has not been assembled; the four readings above are the published sensitivity check.

Reading 2: the projection

Stretch factor s = (actual date − date announced) ÷ (committed date − date announced), from each programme’s own past commitments. s = 1 means on time; s = 2 means it took twice as long as promised. A commitment qualifies if an implementing agency or head of government stated a specific year or tighter date for a lunar or human-spaceflight milestone, at least 730 days ahead; we use the earliest qualifying commitment per milestone and the first attempt as “actual”. Open (unmet) commitments are shown as lower bounds and never enter the median.

Date conventions — each favours the programme
Wording	Date used
Year only ("2028")	31 Dec of that year
"Early / mid / late YYYY"	31 Mar / 30 Jun / 31 Dec
"Before YYYY"	31 Dec of YYYY−1
A range "YYYY–YYYY"	The end of the range (ranges longer than 24 months are excluded)
"No later than" or a commitment date	That date
Milestone "actual"	The first attempt (launch date, UTC)

Commitments

Every commitment considered, with its stretch factor (computed from the dates)
Programme	Commitment	Announced	Committed	Actual	Horizon	s	Class	Used?
US	SLS first launchreadiness "no later than November 2018" (KDP-C)NASA’s September 2011 "first flight 2017" would be the earlier commitment (s = 1.77); its text is not yet confirmed from a NASA primary, so KDP-C is used. Sources: NASA (27 Aug 2014) · U.S. GAO (GAO-15-596) (read 23 Sep 2026)	27 Aug 2014	30 Nov 2018	16 Nov 2022	1556 d	1.930	lunar; new-development	Pooled
US	Orion first crewed flight"a commitment baseline of $11.3 billion and an April 2023 launch readiness date" (Sep 2015) Sources: U.S. GAO (GAO-16-620) (read 23 Sep 2026)	16 Sep 2015	30 Apr 2023	1 Apr 2026	2783 d	1.383	lunar; new-development	Pooled
US	First CLPS deliveriesAstrobotic and Intuitive Machines "by July 2021" (first attempt: Peregrine)Contractors’ proposed dates, published in a NASA release. 792-day horizon: within 10% of the 24-month cutoff. Sources: NASA (31 May 2019)	31 May 2019	31 Jul 2021	8 Jan 2024	792 d (near cutoff)	2.125	lunar; new-development	Pooled
US	Commercial Crewcompanies to "achieve crew rating in 2017" (CCtCap award); first attempt Demo-2 Sources: Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)	16 Sep 2014	31 Dec 2017	30 May 2020	1202 d	1.733	human-spaceflight; new-development; secondary source	Pooled
CN	Chang’e 3"嫦娥三号…预计2013年前后发射" (around 2013)Chinese Wikipedia citing Xinhua; the Xinhua original should be fetched. Sources: Chinese Wikipedia (citing Xinhua) (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)	21 Sep 2011	31 Dec 2013	1 Dec 2013	832 d	0.964	lunar; incremental; secondary source	Pooled
CN	Chang’e 4"around 2018 to achieve mankind’s first soft landing on the far side" (2016 white paper)734-day horizon: four days over the cutoff. Sources: State Council of the PRC (white paper) (28 Dec 2016)	27 Dec 2016	31 Dec 2018	7 Dec 2018	734 d (near cutoff)	0.967	lunar; incremental	Pooled
CN	Chang’e 6"预计2024年前后实施" (around 2024) Sources: Chinese Wikipedia (citing Xinhua) (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)	25 Apr 2021	31 Dec 2024	3 May 2024	1346 d	0.820	lunar; incremental; secondary source	Pooled
CN	Tianhe core module"预计在2018年前后发射" (around 2018; CASC Fifth Academy via Xinhua)The speaker is the prime contractor, not CMSA — admitted because the US CLPS dates are also contractors’ dates. Sources: Chinese Wikipedia (citing Xinhua) (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)	21 Apr 2016	31 Dec 2018	29 Apr 2021	984 d	1.864	human-spaceflight; new-development; secondary source	Pooled
CN	Tiangong-1"2010年-2011年择机发射小型空间站" (2010–11; end of range used)Using the start of the range instead gives s = 1.33. Sources: Chinese Wikipedia (citing china.com.cn) (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)	29 Sep 2008	31 Dec 2011	29 Sep 2011	1188 d	0.922	human-spaceflight; new-development; secondary source	Pooled
US	SLS core elements (NASA Authorization Act 2010)"not later than December 31, 2016" Sources: U.S. Congress (Public Law 111-267) (11 Oct 2010)	11 Oct 2010	31 Dec 2016	16 Nov 2022	2273 d	1.944	lunar; new-development	No — A statutory goal the agency did not adopt; commitments must come from the implementing agency or the head of government.
US	Starship HLS delivery for the crewed landing"December 2024" under Option A (OIG) Sources: NASA Office of Inspector General (IG-26-004) (10 Mar 2026)	16 Apr 2021	31 Dec 2024	not yet	1355 d	≥ 1.47	lunar; new-development	No — Open (not yet met): a lower bound only. It is a contract date, not a public agency commitment — context.
CN	Chang’e 7"scheduled for launch around 2026" (Sep 2024) Sources: gov.cn (Xinhua) (7 Sep 2024) · China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (23 Aug 2026)	7 Sep 2024	31 Dec 2026	not yet	845 d	≥ 0.88	lunar; incremental	No — Open (not yet met): a lower bound only. It becomes at least 1.0 on 1 Jan 2027, which the postponement already makes certain.
CN	Chang’e 5 ("about 2017", 2011 white paper) Sources: Wikipedia (read 23 Sep 2026, secondary)	29 Dec 2011	31 Dec 2017	23 Nov 2020	2194 d	1.482	lunar; incremental; secondary source	No — The 2011 text could not be fetched. Excluding it removes China’s only lunar point above 1 — which helps China; we say so.
CN	Tianwen-1 ("by 2020", 2016 white paper) Sources: State Council of the PRC (white paper) (28 Dec 2016)	27 Dec 2016	31 Dec 2020	23 Jul 2020	1465 d	0.890	deep-space; new-development	No — Deep space is outside both scopes; adding it would require adding US deep-space missions too.
CN	Long March 10A and Mengzhou-1 ("2026", Oct 2025) Sources: China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (30 Oct 2025) · China Manned Space Agency (CMSE site) (26 Nov 2025)	30 Oct 2025	31 Dec 2026	not yet	427 d	≥ 0.77	launcher; new-development	No — Announced less than 24 months ahead.

Not yet in the table: the 2019 US goal of a landing in 2024, because we have not yet fetched a primary text for it (it is open and would enter only as a lower bound). “Near cutoff” marks horizons within 10% of the 730-day rule — a slightly stricter rule would drop them.

Reference classes

Pools: median and range of s (fewer than 3 points → no projection)
Pool	China	United States
Lunar only	n = 3; median 0.96; range 0.82–0.97	n = 3; median 1.93; range 1.38–2.13
Lunar + human spaceflight	n = 5; median 0.96; range 0.82–1.86	n = 4; median 1.83; range 1.38–2.13
New development only	n = 2; median 1.39; range 0.92–1.86	n = 4; median 1.83; range 1.38–2.13

Targets and models

China: Before 2030 (2030年前), read as 31 Dec 2029; target announced 12 Jul 2023.
United States: 2028 (NASA target: early 2028) — Artemis IV, read as 31 Dec 2028 (sensitivity: 31 Mar 2028); target announced 27 Feb 2026.
Primary model — Remaining horizon: today + (target − today) × s. It treats both current targets identically as of today.
Sensitivity — Announced horizon: announced + (target − announced) × s. It penalises a programme that holds a date and rewards one that re-baselines, which is why it is not primary.
Central estimate from the median s; the band runs from the lowest to the highest s. Computed from unrounded values, as of 23 Sep 2026.

Every scenario

Projected crewed-landing windows under every published scenario (central [low → high])
Pool	Model	US target read as	China	United States	Call
Lunar only	Remaining horizon	31 Dec 2028	18 Nov 2029 [30 May 2029 → 22 Nov 2029]	11 Feb 2031 [14 Nov 2029 → 23 Jul 2031]	Bands overlap
Lunar only	Remaining horizon	31 Mar 2028	18 Nov 2029 [30 May 2029 → 22 Nov 2029]	29 Aug 2029 [30 Oct 2028 → 15 Dec 2029]	Bands overlap
Lunar only	Announced horizon	31 Dec 2028	7 Oct 2029 [1 Nov 2028 → 15 Oct 2029]	23 Aug 2031 [2 Feb 2030 → 13 Mar 2032]	China first
Lunar only	Announced horizon	31 Mar 2028	7 Oct 2029 [1 Nov 2028 → 15 Oct 2029]	11 Mar 2030 [18 Jan 2029 → 6 Aug 2030]	Bands overlap
Lunar + human spaceflight	Remaining horizon	31 Dec 2028	18 Nov 2029 [30 May 2029 → 28 Oct 2032]	21 Nov 2030 [14 Nov 2029 → 23 Jul 2031]	Bands overlap
Lunar + human spaceflight	Remaining horizon	31 Mar 2028	18 Nov 2029 [30 May 2029 → 28 Oct 2032]	5 Jul 2029 [30 Oct 2028 → 15 Dec 2029]	Bands overlap
Lunar + human spaceflight	Announced horizon	31 Dec 2028	7 Oct 2029 [1 Nov 2028 → 4 Aug 2035]	13 May 2031 [2 Feb 2030 → 13 Mar 2032]	Bands overlap
Lunar + human spaceflight	Announced horizon	31 Mar 2028	7 Oct 2029 [1 Nov 2028 → 4 Aug 2035]	25 Dec 2029 [18 Jan 2029 → 6 Aug 2030]	Bands overlap
New development only	Remaining horizon	31 Dec 2028	record too thin	21 Nov 2030 [14 Nov 2029 → 23 Jul 2031]	Record too thin (n < 3)
New development only	Remaining horizon	31 Mar 2028	record too thin	5 Jul 2029 [30 Oct 2028 → 15 Dec 2029]	Record too thin (n < 3)
New development only	Announced horizon	31 Dec 2028	record too thin	13 May 2031 [2 Feb 2030 → 13 Mar 2032]	Record too thin (n < 3)
New development only	Announced horizon	31 Mar 2028	record too thin	25 Dec 2029 [18 Jan 2029 → 6 Aug 2030]	Record too thin (n < 3)

Published rule: a country is “projected first” only if every scenario above separates the bands in its favour. Today: Too close to call.

The fragility finding. The projection depends on the reference class. With China’s lunar-robotic record alone, the announced-horizon model says "China projected first"; with any class that includes new-development programmes, or under the remaining-horizon model, the bands overlap. China’s lunar points (Chang’e 3, 4, 6) are incremental robotic missions on proven hardware; the US points are new-development programmes. That is why we publish a call only when every scenario agrees.

Permanent presence: no projection

United States: EO 14369: "establishing initial elements of a permanent lunar outpost by 2030". NASA’s Moon Base phase plan starts long-duration human presence in 2033 or later. No official date for continuous occupation.
Sources: The White House (Executive Order 14369) (18 Dec 2025) · SpaceQ (24 Mar 2026)
China: ILRS "basic model" by 2035: "an expandable and maintainable system capable of long-term robotic operation with short-term human participation". No official date for continuous occupation.
Sources: gov.cn (Xinhua) (7 Sep 2024) · China National Space Administration (Xinhua) (24 Apr 2025)

Neutrality rules

We describe; we do not cheer. The page says "leads on demonstrated milestones" and "projected first" — never "winning", "losing", "beat" or "falling behind".
Official names: CMSA (crewed programme), CNSA (robotic Chang’e and the ILRS), NASA. "China" and "United States" are the actors.
Targets are always shown with their official wording ("before 2030", "2028") and called "official target".
Architecture differences are facts, not defects: "the Starship HLS design requires ship-to-ship refuelling", not "relies on unproven refuelling".
All rungs weigh the same. Any other weighting would be our judgement of which step is harder. Uneven difficulty shows up in the time between rungs.
Country order is alphabetical in English (China, United States) everywhere on the page.
Colours for the two countries are neutral; state is shown by shape and text, never colour alone.

What analysts treat as decisive

US Senate Commerce Committee hearing (3 Sep 2025): Witnesses treated orbital refuelling and the number of launches per landing as decisive for the landing, and cislunar communications and space nuclear power as foundations for staying.
Sources: U.S. Senate Commerce Committee (3 Sep 2025)
CSIS Aerospace Security Project (31 Mar 2026): Separates the sprint to be first (a crewed landing) from the marathon to stay (a base) — the reason the tracker has two goals.
Sources: CSIS Aerospace Security Project (31 Mar 2026)
NASA OIG and GAO (2015–2026): Schedule reliability against committed dates is the decisive variable — the basis for the stretch factor.
Sources: NASA Office of Inspector General (IG-26-004) (10 Mar 2026) · U.S. GAO (GAO-26-108556) (23 Jul 2026) · U.S. GAO (GAO-15-596) (read 23 Sep 2026)

Changelog and corrections

v1.0 — 23 Sep 2026

First publication, after an independent review of the draft method (v0.1).
Adopted the family rule. Rung changes from the draft: US L4 ¼ → ½ (Starship ships are the HLS design family); China L1 ¼ → ½ (Long March 10B is a family variant, capped at ½); China L5 ½ → 0 (robotic dockings used different spacecraft); China L6 0 → ¼ (the Lanyue landing-and-takeoff test).
Suits scored strictly for both countries: US L7 and China L7 ¼ → 0 (no flight-configuration suit qualified).
US P1 evidence now leads with IM-1 (22 Feb 2024, about 80°S), not only IM-2.
Dropped "a vehicle stacked on the pad" as a ¼ example; China P1 now rests on delivery to the launch site after testing, flagged as the weakest evidence on the board.
Projection: stopped borrowing the US record for China; matched the scope on both sides (lunar + human spaceflight); made the remaining-horizon model primary; added matched reference classes; publish a lead only when every scenario agrees; compute from unrounded stretch factors.
Excluded the unconfirmed 2011 Chang’e 5 anchor (this helps China) and the statutory 2010 SLS goal.
All dates stored in UTC; local dates shown with a zone label.

Spotted an error or a newer source? Tell us. A rung changes only on a confirmed event; every change bumps the method version and is logged here.