Monday, July 15, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Space & Astronomy > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Space & Astronomy

Why is it still so hard to land a spacecraft on the Moon?

August 27, 2023 · Comment icon 20 comments

Getting to the Moon is no easy feat. Image Credit: Blue Origin
Almost half of all missions to the Moon fail - but what is it that makes such missions so difficult ?
In 2019, India attempted to land a spacecraft on the Moon - and ended up painting a kilometres-long streak of debris on its barren surface. Now the Indian Space Research Organisation has returned in triumph, with the Chandrayaan-3 lander successfully touching down near the south pole of Earth's rocky neighbour.

India's success came just days after a spectacular Russian failure, when the Luna 25 mission tried to land nearby and "ceased to exist as a result of a collision with the lunar surface".

These twin missions remind us that, close to 60 years after the first successful "soft landing" on the Moon, spaceflight is still difficult and dangerous. Moon missions in particular are still a coin flip, and we have seen several high-profile failures in recent years.

Why were these missions unsuccessful and why did they fail? Is there a secret to the success of countries and agencies who have achieved a space mission triumph?

An exclusive club

The Moon is the only celestial location humans have visited (so far). It makes sense to go there first: it's the closest planetary body to us, at a distance of around 400,000 kilometres.

Yet only four countries have achieved successful "soft landings" - landings which the spacecraft survives - on the lunar surface.

The USSR was the first. The Luna 9 mission safely touched down on the Moon almost 60 years ago, in February 1966. The United States followed suit a few months later, in June 1996, with the Surveyor 1 mission.

China was the next country to join the club, with the Chang'e 3 mission in 2013. And now India too has arrived, with Chandrayaan-3.

Missions from Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Russia, the European Space Agency, Luxembourg, South Korea and Italy have also had some measure of lunar success with fly-bys, orbiters and impacts (whether intentional or not).

Crashes are not uncommon

On August 19 2023, the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that "communication with the Luna 25 spacecraft was interrupted", after an impulse command was sent to the spacecraft to lower its orbit around the Moon. Attempts to contact the spacecraft on August 20 were unsuccessful, leading Roscosmos to determine Luna 25 had crashed.

Despite more than 60 years of spaceflight experience extending from the USSR to modern Russia, this mission failed. We don't know exactly what happened - but the current situation in Russia, where resources are stretched thin and tensions are high due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, may well have been a factor.

The Luna 25 failure recalled two high-profile lunar crashes in 2019.

In April that year, the Israeli Beresheet lander crash-landed after a gyroscope failed during the braking procedure, and the ground control crew was unable to reset the component due to a loss of communications. It was later reported a capsule containing microscopic creatures called tardigrades, in a dormant "cryptobiotic" state, may have survived the crash.

And in September, India sent its own Vikram lander down to the surface of the Moon - but it did not survive the landing. NASA later released an image taken by its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter showing the site of the Vikram lander's impact. Debris was scattered over almost two dozen locations spanning several kilometres.

Space is still risky
Space missions are a risky business. Just over 50% of lunar missions succeed. Even small satellite missions to Earth's orbit don't have a perfect track record, with a success rate somewhere between 40% and 70%.

We could compare uncrewed with crewed missions: around 98% of the latter are successful, because people are more invested in people. Ground staff working to support a crewed mission will be more focused, management will invest more resources, and delays will be accepted to prioritise the safety of the crew.

We could talk about the details of why so many uncrewed missions fail. We could talk about technological difficulties, lack of experience, and even the political landscapes of individual countries.

But perhaps it's better to step back from the details of individual missions and look at averages, to see the overall picture more clearly.

The big picture

Rocket launches and space launches are not very common in the scheme of things. There are around 1.5 billion cars in the world, and perhaps 40,000 aeroplanes. By contrast, there have been fewer than 20,000 space launches in all of history.

Plenty of things still go wrong with cars, and problems occur even in the better-regulated world of planes, from loose rivets to computers overriding pilot inputs. And we have more than a century of experience with these vehicles, in every country on the planet.

So perhaps it's unrealistic to expect spaceflight - whether it's the launch stage of rockets, or the even rarer stage of trying to land on an alien world - to have ironed out all its problems.

We are still very much in the early, pioneering days of space exploration.

Monumental challenges remain

If humanity is ever to create a fully fledged space-faring civilisation, we must overcome monumental challenges.

To make long-duration, long-distance space travel possible, there are a huge number of problems to be solved. Some of them seem within the realm of the possible, such as better radiation shielding, self-sustaining ecosystems, autonomous robots, extracting air and water from raw resources, and zero-gravity manufacturing. Others are still speculative hopes, such as faster-than-light travel, instantaneous communication, and artificial gravity.

Progress will be little by little, small step by slightly larger step. Engineers and space enthusiasts will keep putting their brainpower, time and energy into space missions, and they will gradually become more reliable.

And maybe one day we'll see a time when going for a ride in your spacecraft is as safe as getting in your car.

Gail Iles, Senior Lecturer in Physics, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read the original article. The Conversation

Source: The Conversation | Comments (20)

Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #11 Posted by qxcontinuum 11 months ago
I don't think USA had landed on the moon 60 years ago and furthermore drove a rover on its surface. It would have been impossible. I don't care what others are saying , the subject has been intensively studied and debated over years. The odds are against that moon landing as well the mystery and secrecy surrounding the event almost like a fairytale. 
Comment icon #12 Posted by pellinore 11 months ago
It's well-known the photos were faked:  Just way too many things wrong with this picture! Notice the absence of stars again. The arrows indicate the various directions in which shadows are falling, again showing evidence of inconsistent scene illumination. Yet there is something even more obviously wrong with this picture. If the length of the lower support column of the lunar lander was 4 feet tall, this would indicate that the astronaut was over 8 feet tall, which none of the astronauts were. Another careless mistake from NASA.
Comment icon #13 Posted by Hankenhunter 11 months ago
Conspiracy theory tab is thataway.
Comment icon #14 Posted by pellinore 11 months ago
I think this is pretty conclusive to people who do their own research: Not much wrong with this picture you may think. Yet, by thinking that, you would just become yet another of NASA's conspiracy victims. Firstly, despite the absence of an atmosphere, no stars can be seen in the sky. Secondly, the interior of the shopping basket can clearly be seen when all areas in shadow should be pitch black due to the absence of air molecules. Nice try NASA but we are not fooled that easily!
Comment icon #15 Posted by Alchopwn 11 months ago
How many times are we going to reinvent the wheel again?
Comment icon #16 Posted by pellinore 11 months ago
It couldn't glide in on the moon of course ( no atmosphere), but I was referring to the comparative stability of plane compared to a rocket.
Comment icon #17 Posted by pellinore 11 months ago
It also has to be done at night, as that's when it is visible.
Comment icon #18 Posted by Portre 11 months ago
It is disappointing. With their budget, they should be able to hire a better production team, e.g., Capricorn One.
Comment icon #19 Posted by Portre 11 months ago
But not during the new moon. Timing is so critical.
Comment icon #20 Posted by Waspie_Dwarf 11 months ago
Thread cleaned. A reminder, the swapping of insults is not acceptable, and is in breach of at least two of the rules of the site:   @qxcontinuum as Hakenhunter pointed out, we have a forum for discussing conspiracy theories, this is not it. Please remain on topic. Thank you.

Please Login or Register to post a comment.

Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News


Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon


For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Top 10 trending mysteries
Recent news and articles