economics

kalshiApril 1, 202611h ago

Which country will be the next to send humans to the Moon?

Will the United States be the next country to send humans to the Moon before January 1, 2031?

Resolves Jan 1, 2031, 3:00 PM UTC

View on kalshi

Signal

SELL

Probability

58%

Market: 70%Edge: -12pp

Confidence

MEDIUM

65%

Summary.

My estimated probability that the US will be the next country to send humans to the Moon before January 1, 2031 is 58%, compared to the market's implied probability of 69.5%. This 11.5 percentage point gap represents moderate edge driven by the market underweighting critical technical risks and delay patterns. The US has a nominal two-year advantage (Artemis IV targeting 2028 vs China's 2030 target), but this faces significant headwinds: SpaceX Starship orbital refueling remains unproven and represents unprecedented technical complexity (only on Flight 4 as of March 2026), Artemis has accumulated 4 years of cumulative delays (2024→2028) suggesting systematic execution challenges, and major program restructuring in February 2026 introduces organizational risk. While the US benefits from commercial lander redundancy and Artemis II launching today (April 1, 2026) as near-term validation, China has demonstrated more reliable execution on announced space timelines despite lacking crewed deep-space experience. The market appears to exhibit recency bias from the Artemis II launch window opening and insufficient discounting for the Starship refueling bottleneck that must be solved in 2026-2027 for a 2028 landing.

Reasoning.

TEMPORAL GROUNDING: Analysis as of April 1, 2026

Resolution Criteria Clarification: The market resolution criteria states "first country to launch a manned mission to the Moon before Jan 1, 2031" - this is ambiguous. Does Artemis II (crewed lunar flyby launching TODAY, April 1, 2026) count as a "manned mission to the Moon"? Or does it require surface landing?

Given the context mentions "next country to send humans to the Moon" and Apollo 17 was the last mission in 1972, I interpret this as requiring surface landing (otherwise the market would have already resolved). Proceeding with that interpretation.

Timeline Assessment:

US Target: Artemis IV in 2028

Artemis III downgraded from lunar landing to LEO test flight (mid-2027)
Artemis IV is now the first landing attempt (2028)
4-year cumulative delay history: 2024→2025→2026→2028
Critical path: Artemis II success (launching TODAY) → Artemis III docking test (2027) → Artemis IV landing (2028)

China Target: "Before 2030" (interpreted as 2030)

Hardware testing progressing: Mengzhou crew spacecraft, Lanyue lander, Long March 10 rocket all in test phase as of Feb 2026
Wenchang Space Launch Center expansion underway
No crewed deep-space experience; lunar orbital rendezvous untested
Long March 10 has not yet flown

Two-Year Nominal Buffer: 2028 vs 2030

Critical Technical Bottlenecks:

SpaceX Starship Orbital Refueling (US): Only on Flight 4 as of March 2026. Needs to demonstrate:
- Multiple tanker launches (estimated 8-16 refueling flights per lunar mission)
- Cryo propellant transfer in orbit
- Long-duration propellant storage
- This is unprecedented at required scale; represents massive execution risk for 2028 timeline
Long March 10 & Lunar Rendezvous (China):
- Heavy-lift rocket hasn't flown yet
- Lunar orbital rendezvous and docking untested
- Less complex than Starship refueling but still significant risk

Delay Probability Assessment:

Given Artemis 4-year cumulative delay pattern (averaging 1+ year per cycle), high probability US slips from 2028:

50% chance: Slips to 2029
25% chance: Slips to 2030 or later
25% chance: Executes on 2028 timeline

China has better execution record on announced timelines for robotic missions, but this is their first crewed deep-space attempt. Estimate:

60% chance: Executes 2030 or earlier
30% chance: Slips to 2031+ (misses deadline)
10% chance: Accelerates to 2029

Scenario Modeling:

The US wins if they land before China AND before Jan 1, 2031. Key scenarios:

US 2028, China 2030+: US wins (low probability ~20% given delay history)
US 2029, China 2030: US wins (moderate probability ~25%)
US 2030, China 2030: Coin flip who goes first (~5%)
US 2031+, China 2030: China wins (~15%)
Both slip past 2031: Neither wins (~15%)
US 2029-2030, China 2031+: US wins (~20%)

Political and Funding Risks:

Major program restructuring under Isaacman (Feb 2026): Gateway canceled, $20B pivot to direct lunar base
Future administration changes (2028 election) could further disrupt timeline
China's centralized decision-making provides timeline stability advantage

Market Assessment: Current market at 69.5% appears moderately overconfident in US execution given:

Unprecedented Starship refueling technical challenge
4-year delay history suggesting organizational/technical execution issues
Only 2-year buffer that could evaporate with one major delay cycle
China's demonstrated reliability on announced timelines (albeit for less complex missions)

However, US advantages:

Two commercial lander providers (redundancy)
Artemis II launching TODAY provides near-term validation of crewed lunar capabilities
More experience with crewed spaceflight overall
2-year head start is meaningful

My Estimate: 58% (vs market 69.5%)

This reflects:

~45% chance US lands 2028-2029 before China
~10% chance US lands 2030 before China
~3% chance both land 2030, US first
~42% chance US doesn't win (China wins, both miss deadline, or US slips past 2030)

The 11.5 percentage point gap vs market represents moderate edge, driven primarily by market underweighting Starship refueling technical risk and Artemis delay pattern continuation.

Key Factors.

SpaceX Starship orbital refueling technology maturation - most critical technical bottleneck for US 2028 timeline
Artemis program 4-year cumulative delay history (2024→2028) suggesting high probability of further slippage
Artemis II launch outcome (launching TODAY, April 1, 2026) - near-term validation of crewed lunar flight systems
Two-year timeline buffer (2028 US vs 2030 China) provides cushion but could evaporate with one delay cycle
China's reliable execution record on announced space timelines vs US recent delay pattern
Long March 10 heavy-lift rocket untested status and China's lack of crewed deep-space experience
Major NASA program restructuring (Gateway cancellation, $20B lunar base pivot) introduces organizational risk
Commercial lander redundancy (SpaceX + Blue Origin) provides US backup options if one provider fails

Scenarios.

US Execution Success (2028-2029)

45%

SpaceX successfully demonstrates orbital refueling in 2026-2027, Artemis II and III proceed without major issues, and Artemis IV lands on the Moon in 2028 or 2029 before China. This requires breaking the recent pattern of 1+ year delays per program cycle.

Trigger: Successful Artemis II launch (April 2026), SpaceX completing multiple successful orbital refueling demonstrations by late 2027, Artemis III LEO docking test in mid-2027 without major anomalies, China maintaining 2030 timeline without acceleration.

Competitive Race to 2030

35%

Both programs experience moderate delays. US slips to 2029-2030 due to Starship refueling challenges or Artemis III issues. China maintains 2030 target or slips slightly to early 2030. The race becomes extremely tight with US having slight edge due to earlier launch windows in 2030, but outcome is uncertain.

Trigger: Starship orbital refueling demonstrations in 2027 show partial success but require additional testing cycles, Artemis II successful but reveals new issues requiring 6-12 month delays, China's Long March 10 first flight in late 2026/early 2027 successful, both nations targeting 2030 timeframe.

China Wins or Neither Succeeds Before 2031

20%

US experiences major delays pushing Artemis IV to 2031 or later due to Starship refueling proving more difficult than anticipated, or catastrophic failure in Artemis II/III. China executes on 2030 timeline or accelerates to 2029. Alternatively, both programs slip past January 1, 2031 deadline and market resolves No.

Trigger: Artemis II launch failure or major anomaly requiring extensive investigation, SpaceX unable to demonstrate reliable orbital refueling by 2028, China successfully completes Long March 10 test flights and crew spacecraft tests ahead of schedule in 2027-2028, US political/funding disruptions after 2028 election.

Risks.

Resolution criteria ambiguity: 'manned mission to the Moon' interpretation could technically include flyby vs requiring landing
Artemis II launching TODAY - immediate catalyst that could validate or invalidate US near-term capabilities within days/weeks
Starship orbital refueling could prove fundamentally more difficult than anticipated - no historical precedent at required scale (8-16 tanker flights)
China could accelerate timeline - 'before 2030' target might mean 2029 with limited public transparency on actual schedule
Catastrophic failure in Artemis II or III would push US timeline to 2030+ and flip race dynamics entirely
Political risk: 2028 US election could bring another administration change and further Artemis restructuring
Overweighting historical Apollo success - modern NASA organizational culture and contractor complexity very different from 1960s
Blue Origin lunar lander development status unclear - redundancy advantage assumes both providers viable
Geopolitical escalation could accelerate either program under nationalist pressure (space race 2.0 dynamics)
Financial/economic crisis could impact NASA budgeting for $20B lunar base strategy

Edge Assessment.

MODERATE EDGE: My estimate of 58% vs market 69.5% represents an 11.5 percentage point difference.

Reasons for Edge:

Market appears to underweight Starship refueling technical risk: Orbital refueling at the scale required (8-16 tanker flights, cryo propellant management, long-duration storage) is unprecedented. SpaceX only on Flight 4 as of March 2026. Market may be anchoring on SpaceX's general execution success without fully accounting for this specific technical challenge.
Insufficient discounting for Artemis delay pattern: 4-year cumulative slippage (2024→2028) suggests systematic execution issues. Market at 69.5% implies ~70% confidence US hits 2028-2029 window, which seems optimistic given this track record.
Recency bias from Artemis II launch window opening: Market pricing from April 2026 may be influenced by positive sentiment around Artemis II finally launching, without adequately pricing downstream bottlenecks (Starship refueling in 2027-2028).
Underestimating China execution reliability: While China lacks crewed deep-space experience, their demonstrated ability to hit announced timelines on Chang'e robotic missions and Tiangong station suggests better organizational execution than recent US programs.
Two-year buffer may be illusory: Market treats 2028 vs 2030 as substantial cushion, but in space programs with 1+ year delay cycles, this can evaporate quickly.

Bet Recommendation: Market offers modest value on the NO side (China wins or neither by 2031) at implied 30.5%. My 42% probability suggests approximately 37% edge on NO position, though this should be tempered by:

High uncertainty (confidence level 0.65)
Near-term catalyst TODAY (Artemis II launch) could rapidly update probabilities
Long time horizon (5 years to resolution) means significant information will emerge

Position sizing should be modest given upcoming Artemis II catalyst and moderate confidence level.

What Would Change Our Mind.

Artemis II launch success or failure in April 2026 - immediate validation/invalidation of US crewed lunar capabilities
SpaceX demonstrating successful orbital refueling with multiple tanker flights by late 2026 or early 2027 - would significantly increase confidence in 2028 timeline
Artemis III LEO docking test (mid-2027) experiencing major delays or anomalies - would push Artemis IV to 2029-2030 and reduce US probability
China's Long March 10 heavy-lift rocket first flight outcome in late 2026/2027 - failure would reduce China probability; success maintains timeline
SpaceX Starship orbital refueling demonstrations showing fundamental technical challenges requiring extensive additional development beyond 2027
NASA announcing further Artemis IV delays beyond 2028 - would significantly reduce US probability if timeline slips to 2029-2030
China announcing timeline acceleration to 2029 or earlier - would compress US advantage window
Catastrophic failure in any Artemis mission requiring extensive investigation and program stand-down
2028 US election resulting in administration change and major space policy restructuring similar to February 2026 Gateway cancellation
Blue Origin lunar lander development encountering major setbacks - would reduce US redundancy advantage

Sources.

Get This Via API.

Access real-time prediction market analysis programmatically. Every analysis on this page is available through our REST API.

curl -X POST https://api.rekko.ai/v1/markets/kalshi/TICKER/analyze \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer YOUR_API_KEY"

Get API Key Read Docs

Related Analysis.

economics

NO TRADE

Fed Interest Rate Increase of 25+ bps After April 2026 Meeting

Based on analysis as of March 20, 2026, the probability of a 25+ bps Fed rate hike at the April 28-29 meeting is estimated at 1%, precisely matching the CME FedWatch market-implied probability. This represents near-universal consensus that a hike will NOT occur. The overwhelming evidence includes: (1) the March 17-18 FOMC dot plot showing zero of 12 participants projecting any rate increases in 2026, with median forecast indicating one 25 bps CUT by year-end; (2) the only dissent at the March meeting was Governor Miran voting for a CUT, not a hike; (3) Chair Powell's messaging emphasizing patience and viewing current 3.50%-3.75% rates as "sufficiently restrictive"; (4) inflation attributed to temporary supply shocks (tariffs, Middle East energy crisis) rather than demand overheating requiring tighter policy; and (5) the Fed having just completed a cutting cycle in late 2025, with historical precedent showing such pauses lead to holds or eventual cuts, not renewed tightening. Even the most hawkish mainstream analysts expect no hikes until 2027 at earliest. With only 39 days until the April meeting, there is insufficient time for the catastrophic inflation data that would be required to force a complete Fed policy reversal. The market is correctly priced with no identifiable edge.

1%Mar 20, 2026

economicskalshi

SELL

Courts consider Amazon a monopoly?

The market assigns a 58.5% probability that a U.S. District Court will find Amazon illegally maintained a monopoly, while our analysis estimates 52%—a modest 6.5 percentage point discrepancy. The FTC's case has survived two dismissal attempts and benefits from a lengthy discovery period and favorable precedent (DOJ v. Google Search), but three factors suggest the market may be overconfident in a government victory: (1) Settlement risk is substantial—historical antitrust cases of this magnitude settle 40-60% of the time, and any settlement would resolve NO since it avoids a court monopoly finding; (2) FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson's less aggressive stance than predecessor Lina Khan may increase settlement pressure despite maintaining the case for 18+ months; (3) High evidentiary burdens at trial—surviving pleading-stage motions does not translate linearly to proving complex market definition and anticompetitive effects claims. Our scenario modeling assigns 35% probability to government trial victory, 33% to settlement (resolves NO), and 32% to Amazon trial victory. Confidence is low (0.45) due to significant information asymmetry: discovery evidence quality, settlement negotiation status, and Judge Chun's substantive views remain opaque to public markets. The 4-year timeline to 2030 resolution creates substantial intervening event risk.

52%Mar 24, 2026

economicskalshi

NO TRADE

Courts consider Amazon a monopoly?

The market prices FTC victory at 65%, while my analysis estimates 58% probability that Judge Chun will rule Amazon illegally maintained a monopoly. The FTC has strong procedural momentum: Judge Chun denied Amazon's motion to dismiss in September 2024 (a significant positive signal as most antitrust cases surviving this hurdle have elevated government success rates), and Amazon's $2.5 billion Prime settlement before the same judge in September 2025 suggests compelling internal discovery evidence and judicial receptiveness to government arguments about Amazon's practices. However, the market appears to overly discount critical risks. Market definition remains contested as evidenced by the March 7, 2026 economics hearing—if Amazon successfully argues the relevant market includes all retail (Walmart, Target, brick-and-mortar), its market share falls below monopoly thresholds and the case collapses regardless of conduct evidence. Historical base rates show ~50-60% government win rates in monopoly maintenance trials. While procedural strength justifies upward adjustment, the 65% market price exceeds what the evidence supports given ongoing market definition disputes, discovery still in progress through April 2026, and inherent unpredictability of bench trial outcomes. The 7-percentage-point gap represents a modest edge but meaningful mispricing.

58%Mar 29, 2026