Central to that battle is control of what are called Lagrange points. These are positions in space where objects can remain in position with minimal fuel use. This is because of how gravity and motion balance at these points. A spacecraft in orbit is constantly falling towards a larger body, like Earth or the Sun, while also moving forward fast enough to avoid crashing. At these Lagrange points, gravitational forces cause the craft to remain in a stable position in space. Instead of constantly firing engines to stay in position, the spacecraft effectively falls into place. Only small adjustments are needed to keep it stable.

There are only five of these positions in the Earth-Sun system, and each offers a distinct advantage.

The first Lagrange point (known as L1) is 1.5 million km in front of Earth towards the Sun. Its location would allow for continuous monitoring of solar activity and early warnings about disruptions that could affect satellites and terrestrial infrastructure.

For reference, the Moon is around 380 000km from Earth, at its closest Mars is sometimes just over 50 million km from Earth, and the Sun is 150 million km away.

L2 lies about 1.5 million km behind Earth away from the Sun. It is already occupied by the James Webb Space Telescope and offers a stable environment for deep-space observation and long-duration monitoring systems.

L3 is positioned on the far side of the Sun, directly opposite Earth. It remains largely inaccessible and unobserved, but its location presents a potential blind spot in future space operations.

L4 and L5 are ahead of and behind Earth along its orbit, respectively. These are naturally stable positions where objects can remain in place over long periods with minimal intervention.

In serious places, control of these positions is viewed in explicitly strategic terms, as holding them would allow countries on Earth to establish permanent presences along the key transit routes between Earth, the Moon, and deeper space.

As The Common Sense’s Warwick Grey wrote on these pages earlier this week, these points are in practice the “Hormuz chokepoints” of space.

The practical reasons for this are fascinating.

First, cost. Launching everything directly from Earth is expensive. Operating from these positions would allow fuel, equipment, and materials to be staged and reused in space, lowering the cost of sustained activity.

Second, position. These points are along the natural routes between Earth, the Moon, and deeper space. Any serious movement of goods, fuel, or people would pass near them. Holding those positions is the difference between participating in that flow and controlling it.

Third, persistence. Satellites in low-Earth orbit move quickly and pass out of range. Assets at Lagrange points remain fixed relative to Earth and the Sun. That allows continuous observation, communication, and control.

Fourth, scale. Large infrastructure, whether for energy generation, mining processing, or manufacturing, requires stable environments. L4 and L5, in particular, offer conditions where such systems could operate in the long term with minimal orbital adjustment.

Fifth, timing. Space governance remains underdeveloped. The countries that establish a presence first will shape the rules that follow, from access rights to commercial regulation, and security arrangements. And what these regulations and arrangements might determine is extraordinary, ranging from mining and mineral production to exports back to Earth to energy generation to the deployment of weapons systems.

Just this week, Japanese tech firm Rapidus announced that it is looking to start mass-producing microchips on the Moon by 2040, given the manufacturing advantages of the its low gravity, and natural vacuum environment.

The United States (US) has moved earliest, through programmes led by the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, including the planned Lunar Gateway, which is intended to anchor a sustained presence in cislunar space (the space between Earth and the Moon).

China, through the China National Space Administration, is advancing parallel capabilities tied to its lunar programme. India and Russia are pursuing complementary strategies aimed at securing access and influence.

The Artemis space mission should not be understood as an interesting human interest gambit. Instead, what is being tested, demonstrated, and normalised is the ability to operate reliably beyond Earth’s orbit, to navigate key corridors of space, and to sustain missions at a distance.

That is why the US, China, India, and Russia are all building towards a sustained presence in space. Not for prestige, but because the first countries to establish infrastructure at these positions will shape how space is used, who benefits from it, and who is excluded, and that will in turn probably become definitive to who controls the balance of economic and military power on Earth.

RW Johnson, a regular columnist for The Common Sense, has written a series of columns on space exploration. You can read them here, and here and here.