SpaceX Makes Big Change, Targets the Moon

Chethana Janith, Jadetimes Staff

C. Janith is a Jadetimes news reporter and sub-editor covering science and geopolitics.

---

SpaceX is developing its Starship vehicle to help humanity become a multiplanet species. Credit: SpaceX

It's finally happened: Elon Musk has announced that SpaceX, the company he founded in 2002 with the goal of creating the first self-sustaining city on Mars, will no longer be focusing on Mars. As he announced on Feb. 8th via X, the social media platform he acquired in 2023, the company will now focus on creating a self-sustaining city on the Moon. Musk cited several reasons for this pivot, including a shorter development timeline ("less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years"), faster transit times, and more regular launch windows.

While 135 million people worldwide tuned in to watch the Super Bowl, Musk typed out an auspicious message:

"For those unaware, SpaceX has already shifted focus to building a self-growing city on the Moon, as we can potentially achieve that in less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years. The mission of SpaceX remains the same: extend consciousness and life as we know it to the stars.

It is only possible to travel to Mars when the planets align every 26 months (six month trip time), whereas we can launch to the Moon every 10 days (2 day trip time). This means we can iterate much faster to complete a Moon city than a Mars city.

To Mars...

This represents a major departure for Musk, who has spent the past two decades working towards the singular goal of establishing an outpost of human civilization on Mars. In early 2001, Musk met Robert Zubrin (founder of the Mars Society) and gave a plenary talk at their fourth convention, where he first announced the Mars Oasis project. As he would later describe it, this project "would land a small robotic greenhouse that would establish life on another planet and show great images of green plants on a red background. It would get the public excited, and we'd learn a lot about what it takes to sustain plant life on the surface of Mars."

By 2012, during an [address made at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London] (https://www.space.com/18596-mars-colony-spacex-elon-musk.html), Musk outlined his vision for a self-sustaining city capable of supporting a population of 80,000. He was there to receive the Society's gold medal for his contributions to commercial space and share his plans for the future. Around the same time, Musk began offering teasers that his company planned to develop a super-heavy rocket capable of surpassing the Falcon 9 fleet's capabilities.

This became known as the Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT), formerly the BFR, a spacecraft designed to ferry passengers and cargo between Earth and Mars. In 2016, at the 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Guadalajara, Mexico, Musk delivered his first annual update on the spacecraft's design, now renamed the Interplanetary Transport System (ITS). By 2019, the name was changed again to Starship and Superheavy, a name it has held ever since.

Since then, virtually all advances in terms of engine technology, flight testing, manufacturing, and materials science were directly tied to the launch vehicle's development. At the same time, Musk revealed that the Starship would rely on orbital refueling to reach Mars and how he envisioned a fleet of 1,000 Starship launches per year, each carrying 100 passengers or 100 metric tons of cargo.

...from the Moon?

For reasons that are not entirely obvious, SpaceX is now shifting its primary focus to the Moon. Musk provided all of the obvious benefits of this plan, claiming that a self-sustaining city could be built there in "less than 10 years, whereas Mars would take 20+ years." He also noted the difference in transit times and launch windows. Whereas missions to Mars can only occur every 26 months when the two planets are closest to each other (during a Mars Opposition), SpaceX would be capable of launching a lunar mission every 10 days.

Concept art for SpaceX's Mars Colonial Transporter (MCT) Credit: Stanley Von Medvey (aka bagtaggar)

What's more, transits to the Moon are very rapid by comparison. Using conventional propulsion, it can take a spacecraft 6 to 9 months to reach Mars, whereas the Apollo missions took just 3 to 4 days to reach the Moon (Musk believes his rockets could make it in 2). That kind of launch cadence would certainly make the creation of a self-sustaining city on the Moon much easier and more cost-effective. However, Musk emphasized that SpaceX is not abandoning the idea of building a city on Mars; it is just being put on the back burner for now. As he wrote:

"The mission of SpaceX remains the same: extend consciousness and life as we know it to the stars... SpaceX will also strive to build a Mars city and begin doing so in about 5 to 7 years, but the overriding priority is securing the future of civilization and the Moon is faster.

Why Now?

Naturally, there is the question of timing and why Musk is announcing this now. In the past, Musk has been dismissive about the potential for human habitats and commercial operations on the Moon. A little over a year ago, he went as far as to characterize the Moon as "a distraction" and reiterated his company's vision of going "straight to Mars." What exactly has changed in the past 14 months that would convince Elon to make such a seismic shift?

On the one hand, there have been setbacks in the development of the lunar lander version of the Starship (the Starship HLS), which is vital to NASA's [Artemis Program](https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/artemis/). To date, the launch vehicle has conducted 11 flight tests, 5 of which failed, resulting in the loss of the spacecraft. In addition, the company has still not made an on-orbit refueling demonstration, which is also vital to Artemis.

Faced with these obstacles, there is significant doubt that the Starship HLS will be ready in time for Artemis III, which is currently scheduled to launch next year. This is what led acting Administrator Sean Duffy to announce back in October that NASA was opening up the HLS contract to competition again. This does not bode well for Musk, who is already facing competition from Blue Origin (SpaceX's chief rival) for Artemis missions. At present, Jeff Bezos' has secured HLS contracts for Artemis V and VI using the company's Blue Moon lander.

SpaceX is also facing growing competition in the satellite launch market. While SpaceX has dominated this sector for many years, other companies and startups are capturing a growing share. In 2025, the total commercial space market was valued at $27.43 billion, with SpaceX accounting for 80% of the market share (roughly $22 billion). However, this was also the year that Blue Origin achieved its first orbital flight with the New Glenn rocket, which will make it a major contender in the satellite launch market. Rocket Lab is another rising star, specializing in low-cost launches servicing microsatellites.

For years, Musk has also focused on developing generative AI software integrated with his X social media platform. This plan has grown to include commercial space, as indicated by the recent merger of SpaceX and xAI. Musk announced that the "immediate focus" on the expanded company is deploying a constellation of up to one million satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). In so doing, Musk hopes to address a growing challenge for AI processing stations: rising electricity demand and the need for water to keep the equipment at operating temperature. As he wrote in a statement roughly a week ago:

By directly harnessing near-constant solar power with little operating or maintenance costs, these satellites will transform our ability to scale compute. It’s always sunny in space! Launching a constellation of a million satellites that operate as orbital data centers is a first step towards becoming a Kardashev II-level civilization, one that can harness the sun’s full power, while supporting AI-driven applications for billions of people today and ensuring humanity’s multiplanetary future.

By securing resources and launch capabilities on the Moon, SpaceX would be able to service and extend this constellation well beyond LEO. It's also consistent with the many recent discussions for "commercializing cis-lunar space," the next step beyond commercializing LEO. Between solar arrays in space, data centers, and an outpost on the Moon, SpaceX and other companies would effectively enable the extension of human civilization beyond Earth. For anyone hoping to live, work, and visit a city on the Moon, they could look forward to having abundant electricity and wireless internet on demand.

Conclusions?

Faced with these circumstances, Musk may be opting to shift his focus to smaller, more achievable goals. With the lunar market looming and Mars a much more distant prospect, he may also be hoping to beat his competitors to the punch. The mention of the Kardashev Scale in his statement is especially interesting, as it implies that these data centers would assist humanity in harnessing the power of the entire Solar System. Of course, Musk is known for his hyperbole and for statements that his plans are part of a massive effort to solve the world's problems and "save humanity."

But one cannot deny that this seismic shift is practical and likely driven by multiple factors. In reality, Musk is not stating anything new regarding the benefits he cited. For decades, space agencies and scientists alike have spoken of the importance of lunar exploration and settlement before going to Mars. Famed Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield summed it up perfectly when he said, "[O]ur efforts should be focused on renewed exploration of the Moon and the creation of a lunar settlement before we do the same for Mars."

This is also the rationale behind NASA's "Moon to Mars" mission architecture, which it has pursued ever since the Constellation Program (2005-2010). For Musk, this may be a case of reading the writing on the wall after years of having to push back the start date for his proposed Martian city. Only time will tell.

A Political Reset in Tokyo: Ruling Party Secures Fresh Lowerhouse Majority

Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes Staff

---

Image Source: Eugene Hoshiko

Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) achieved a decisive victory in the recent House of Representatives election, reclaiming a commanding majority in the lower chamber and delivering a political reset that will shape Tokyo’s domestic agenda and regional posture for years to come. The LDP’s landslide—projected and reported by multiple national and international outlets—gave Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and her party a standalone supermajority, enabling faster lawmaking, committee control, and the capacity to override Upper House objections on key legislation.

This article provides a comprehensive, expertlevel account of the election and its implications: a full history of the LDP’s dominance since 1955; a detailed breakdown of the recent vote, turnout, and seat distribution; policy and coalition consequences; comparisons with similar electoral turnarounds; regional and international ramifications; and a timeline of critical events. Every major factual claim is supported by authoritative reporting and institutional histories to ensure accuracy and searchfriendly clarity.

News snapshot and immediate significance

· Result: The LDP secured a landslide in the Lower House, winning a twothirds supermajority in the 465seat chamber according to national broadcasters and media tallies. This outcome gives the party the ability to override Upper House vetoes on legislation and to control all standing committees in the Lower House.

· Leader: Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who became party president and prime minister months earlier, consolidated public support and led the party to its largest postwar victory.

· Context: The snap election was called amid economic concerns, demographic pressures, and heightened regional security tensions; the LDP’s campaign emphasized stability, economic management, and national security.

Part I — The LDP’s historical arc: from 1955 System to 2026 supermajority

Founding and the 1955 System

The Liberal Democratic Party was formed in November 1955 through the merger of the Liberal Party and the Japan Democratic Party, creating a broad conservative coalition that dominated Japanese politics for decades. The socalled 1955 System established the LDP as the central governing force in postwar Japan, combining factional internal competition with electoral machinery that repeatedly outperformed a divided opposition.

Postwar dominance and institutional advantages

Across the late 20th century, the LDP’s advantages included strong local networks, control of rural vote distribution, close ties with the bureaucracy, and a pragmatic approach to coalition building. These structural strengths allowed the party to govern almost continuously, interrupted only briefly by opposition victories.

Adaptation and resilience in the 21st century

Facing economic stagnation, demographic decline, and changing voter preferences, the LDP adapted by modernizing campaign techniques, cultivating charismatic leaders, and forming pragmatic coalitions. The party’s ability to renew itself—while retaining institutional depth—explains how it could rebound from periods of weakness to secure a supermajority in 2026.

Part II — Anatomy of the 2026 LowerHouse victory

Vote mechanics and seat distribution

National broadcasters and major outlets projected the LDP would win between roughly 274 and 328 seats, with coalition partners adding to a combined total that crossed the twothirds threshold (310 seats) required to override Upper House vetoes. Final tallies reported the LDP alone winning more than 300 seats in the 465member chamber, marking a historic singleparty supermajority.

Turnout and voter demographics

The election saw variable turnout across urban and rural districts. Exit polls and postelection analysis indicate the LDP made gains among older voters and in suburban districts, while retaining pockets of urban support through targeted messaging on economic stability and national security. Younger and progressive urban voters remained more fragmented, benefiting opposition parties in specific constituencies but not enough to prevent the LDP’s overall sweep.

Campaign themes and strategic gambles

Prime Minister Takaichi’s campaign emphasized stability, economic revitalization, and defense modernization—messages that resonated amid regional tensions and economic uncertainty. The snap election was a calculated gamble to convert high approval ratings into legislative power; the gamble paid off, producing the largest singleparty majority in Japan’s postwar history.

Part III — Policy implications and governance consequences

Legislative agenda and speed of reform

With a Lower House supermajority, the LDP can:

· Advance major economic reforms aimed at productivity, supplychain resilience, and industrial policy.

· Push defense and security legislation, including measures to strengthen Japan’s SelfDefense Forces and deepen security cooperation with allies.

· Control parliamentary committees, streamlining the legislative calendar and reducing the opposition’s ability to block or delay bills.

A twothirds majority also enables constitutional amendment procedures to proceed more easily in the Lower House—though any constitutional change still requires broader political consensus and an eventual public referendum.

Coalition dynamics and intraparty balance

Although the LDP now commands a dominant position, internal factions and coalition partners (including the Japan Innovation Party in the current coalition) will still shape policy details. A larger majority reduces the party’s dependence on coalition bargaining but does not eliminate factional competition within the LDP itself.

Bureaucracy and implementation

Japan’s administrative apparatus is likely to align quickly with the new legislative mandate. Ministries with long institutional memory will be tasked with translating the LDP’s platform into concrete programs—particularly in fiscal policy, social security reform, and industrial subsidies.

Part IV — Comparative perspective: similar electoral turnarounds

Comparison 1 — LDP’s historical landslides

The 2026 result is comparable to earlier LDP landslides in scale but unique in being the first postwar singleparty twothirds majority in the Lower House. Previous LDP recoveries relied on coalition management and incremental gains; this victory is notable for its breadth and speed.

Comparison 2 — Snap election gambits elsewhere

Globally, snap elections have sometimes produced decisive mandates (e.g., UK 2019 Conservative victory) and sometimes backfired. The LDP’s gamble mirrors successful cases where a popular leader converts momentum into legislative power; it contrasts with failed gambits where overreach produced voter backlash. The Japanese case underscores the importance of timing, leader popularity, and coherent messaging.

Lessons for opposition strategy

The opposition’s fragmentation and inability to present a unified alternative echo patterns seen in other democracies where incumbents exploit divisions to secure majorities. Rebuilding credible opposition coalitions will be essential to provide effective parliamentary scrutiny in the coming term.

Part V — Regional and international implications

Security and the IndoPacific balance

A stronger LDP majority is likely to accelerate Japan’s defense posture: increased defense spending, deeper security cooperation with the United States and regional partners, and a more assertive diplomatic stance in the face of rising regional tensions. Allies and rivals alike will watch Tokyo’s policy moves closely.

Economic diplomacy and trade

With legislative certainty, Japan can pursue trade and investment initiatives more confidently—negotiating supplychain agreements, promoting semiconductor and criticalmaterials policies, and engaging in regional economic frameworks.

Global reactions

International leaders and capitals have already reacted to the result, framing it as a sign of political stability in a key U.S. ally. Diplomatic outreach in the immediate aftermath focused on congratulatory messages and signals of continued cooperation.

Timeline of key events

Year	Event	Significance
1955	LDP founded through merger	Establishes longterm conservative dominance in postwar Japan.
1993	Brief LDP interruption	Demonstrates vulnerability when opposition unites.
2012–2020s	LDP returns and adapts	Party modernizes campaign methods and policy focus.
Oct 2025	Sanae Takaichi becomes LDP president and PM	New leadership sets stage for snap election.
Feb 8, 2026	Snap Lower House election; LDP wins supermajority	Historic twothirds majority in the Lower House.

Sources and evidence base

This article synthesizes reporting from national broadcasters and major international outlets, and it draws on institutional histories of the LDP to contextualize the result. Key sources, informing the most loadbearing factual claims, include NHK and major Japanese media projections of seat counts, contemporaneous reporting on the LDP’s victory and Sanae Takaichi’s leadership, and authoritative party histories.

Japan’s Lower House election produced a decisive political reset: the LDP’s supermajority restores legislative momentum to the governing party and gives Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi a rare degree of parliamentary control. The victory reflects the LDP’s institutional resilience, effective campaign timing, and voter appetite for stability amid economic and security uncertainties. While the result enables ambitious policy action, it also places responsibility on the ruling party to translate electoral strength into durable reforms that address Japan’s demographic and economic challenges. The opposition’s task is to regroup and present credible alternatives; the international community will watch how Tokyo leverages its renewed mandate in the IndoPacific and beyond.

The Two Thirds Rule in Japan: A Complete Guide to Constitutional Amendment Pow

Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes Staff

---

 Image Source: Ryo FUKAsawa

Japan’s political system is built on a constitutional framework that has remained unchanged since 1947. For decades, debates over constitutional revision—especially Article 9—have shaped party platforms, election strategies, and coalition negotiations. Yet one procedural requirement stands at the center of every discussion: the twothirds rule in the National Diet.

When Japan’s ruling party secures a twothirds majority in the House of Representatives, it gains the institutional leverage needed to initiate constitutional amendments. This threshold does not guarantee revision, but it unlocks the legal pathway that makes amendment possible. Understanding how this rule works—and why it matters—requires examining Japan’s constitutional architecture, the political history behind it, and the strategic implications of a supermajority in the lower chamber.

1. Why the TwoThirds Rule Matters

Japan’s Constitution sets an unusually high bar for amendment. Article 96 requires:

· A twothirds majority in both houses of the Diet, and

· A national referendum, where a simple majority of valid votes must approve the change.

This means the lower house’s supermajority is only the first step, but it is the most politically consequential one. Without it, constitutional revision cannot even be proposed.

A ruling party with twothirds control of the House of Representatives gains:

· Agendasetting power to introduce amendment drafts

· Committee control to shape deliberations

· Negotiating leverage over coalition partners and opposition blocs

· The ability to pass amendment bills even if the upper house is divided

In short, the twothirds rule transforms constitutional reform from a theoretical aspiration into a legislative possibility.

2. The Constitutional Architecture Behind the Rule

Japan’s Constitution was designed to prevent unilateral changes by any single political force. The framers embedded multiple safeguards:

High parliamentary threshold

Requiring twothirds in both houses ensures broad political consensus.

Public referendum

Even if the Diet approves an amendment, the public must ratify it.

No emergency bypass

Unlike some constitutions, Japan’s charter does not allow emergency amendments or executivedriven changes.

Judicial neutrality

Courts do not interpret amendment proposals; they only review procedural legality.

These layers make Japan one of the most amendmentresistant democracies in the world.

3. Political History: How the TwoThirds Rule Has Shaped Japan’s Ruling Party

Postwar decades (1955–1990s): LDP dominance but constitutional caution

The Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) held nearcontinuous power and often commanded large majorities. Yet despite ideological interest in revising the constitution, the party rarely pursued amendments aggressively. Cold War geopolitics, public skepticism, and coalition dynamics discouraged bold moves.

1990s–2000s: Electoral reform and shifting coalitions

After the 1993 political realignment, the LDP returned to power but relied more heavily on coalition partners. Securing twothirds in both houses became increasingly difficult.

Abe era (2012–2020): The closest Japan came to revision

Under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the LDP and its coalition partners repeatedly approached or achieved twothirds majorities in both houses. Abe prioritized constitutional revision—especially clarifying the legal status of the SelfDefense Forces—but public opinion and coalition caution prevented a referendum.

Recent years: Fragmentation and renewed debate

As regional security concerns intensified, constitutional revision returned to the political agenda. The twothirds rule once again became the central metric for assessing whether reform was politically viable.

4. How a TwoThirds LowerHouse Majority Works in Practice

Step 1 — Drafting the amendment

The ruling party or a coalition committee prepares a proposal, often focusing on:

· Article 9 (selfdefense forces)

· Emergency powers

· Electoral reform

· Digital governance or rights provisions

Step 2 — Committee deliberation

With twothirds control, the ruling party dominates:

· Constitutional Review Committees

· Legislative committees

· Agendasetting bodies

This allows the majority to schedule debates, shape language, and move proposals forward.

Step 3 — Lowerhouse vote

A twothirds majority ensures passage even if the opposition votes as a bloc.

Step 4 — Upperhouse negotiations

The upper house may be more fragmented. A strong lowerhouse mandate increases pressure on upperhouse members to cooperate or negotiate amendments.

Step 5 — National referendum

If both houses approve, the proposal goes to the public. Japan has never held a constitutional referendum, so political parties must prepare:

· Public education campaigns

· Legal frameworks for referendum oversight

· Messaging strategies to build support

5. Political Implications of a TwoThirds Majority

1. Strengthened executive leadership

A prime minister with a supermajority gains greater authority over:

· Cabinet priorities

· Bureaucratic coordination

· Coalition bargaining

2. Opposition recalibration

Opposition parties must decide whether to:

· Cooperate on limited amendments

· Form antirevision coalitions

· Focus on public campaigning ahead of a referendum

3. Coalition dynamics

Coalition partners may support or restrain constitutional initiatives depending on their voter base and ideological stance.

4. Public opinion becomes decisive

Even with a supermajority, no amendment can pass without public approval. Polling, media narratives, and civilsociety mobilization become central political battlegrounds.

6. Comparisons with Other Constitutional Systems

United States

Amendments require twothirds of Congress and threequarters of states—similar in difficulty to Japan’s process.

Germany

Basic Law amendments require twothirds of both houses but no referendum.

South Korea

Requires twothirds of the National Assembly and a public referendum.

Japan’s system is among the most stringent, particularly because it combines a supermajority requirement with a mandatory referendum.

7. Historical Attempts at Constitutional Revision

Period	Political Context	Outcome
1950s–1970s	LDP dominance	No serious attempts due to public opposition
1990s	Political realignment	Fragmentation prevented consensus
2005–2007	LDP–Komeito coalition	Draft proposals circulated but stalled
2012–2020	Abe administration	Came closest but lacked referendum momentum
2020s	Renewed debate	Security concerns revived interest

8. Timeline: Key Moments in Japan’s Constitutional Amendment Debate

Year	Event	Significance
1947	Constitution enacted	Establishes Article 9 and amendment rules
1955	LDP founded	Begins decades of conservative dominance
2000s	First modern amendment drafts	Signals renewed interest in revision
2012–2020	Abe era	Twothirds majorities achieved but no referendum
2020s	Rising regional tensions	Constitutional debate intensifies

9. Why the TwoThirds Rule Will Continue to Shape Japanese Politics

The twothirds requirement ensures that constitutional change cannot be driven by a single election cycle or a narrow partisan coalition. It forces political actors to build broad consensus, negotiate across party lines, and engage the public directly.

From a political perspective, the rule:

· Elevates the strategic importance of LowerHouse elections

· Shapes coalition formation and party platforms

· Influences leadership contests within the ruling party

· Determines whether constitutional reform is even on the table

As long as the rule remains in place, Japan’s constitutional future will depend not only on electoral victories but on the ability of political leaders to persuade both parliament and the public.