The lunar challenges

The repeated setbacks prompt a pressing question: If we could put humans on the moon in 1969, why are we stumbling now?

Space exploration is challenging but to replicate what had been achieved way back in the late 1960s and early 1970s with humans onboard should have been smooth in our modern age.

In February, the private sector took a giant leap with its first successful moon landing but it was far from spectacular — Intuitive Machines’ Odysseus spacecraft settled on the lunar surface at an awkward angle, crippling the mission.

Earlier in January, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) and a commercial partner, Astrobotic, took a first step towards returning US robotic instruments to the moon, but failed. The same month, JAXA’s SLIM probe, designed to land within a 100-metre diameter target zone on the lunar surface, ended in disappointment until it survived two lunar nights without its instruments freezing. This was less than a year after a Japanese startup’s bid to land on the moon failed. 

Russia’s Luna 25 lander mission, which planned to land near the lunar south pole, too, crashed in August last year.

Recently, SpaceX launched Starship, which cruised into space, but the private astronautics firm lost its heaviest rocket after re-entry to Earth. Starship is tasked with carrying astronauts to the moon as part of Nasa’s Artemis programme, which has now been delayed.

In recent years, India’s Chandrayaan-3 mission in 2023 has stood out as the only silver lining — its Vikram lander managed to settle in the vicinity of the lunar south pole, a region thought to hold ice water. But this too followed a failed soft-landing attempt in 2019.

These repeated setbacks prompt a pressing question: If we could put humans on the moon in 1969, why are we stumbling now?

Notably, recent lunar missions are test-landing in difficult locations, such as at the south pole. Most landings by the US and Cold War-era Soviet Russia were in around relatively easy central belt of the moon.

The recent failures highlight the difficulty of a soft-landing on the moon’s rugged surface. For example, the Luna-25 mission aimed to land at the Boguslawsky crater but a topological analysis of the site earlier had showed “the presence of numerous populations of the blocky material within the ejecta” and warned about steep slopes.

According to a 2020 study, more than 109,000 new craters were discovered in the low- and mid-latitude regions of the moon using artificial intelligence, which was fed data collected by Chinese lunar orbiters.

So, even a minor glitch or mis-calculation during the critical descent phase in such scenarios could have catastrophic consequences.

Also, the Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970s were designed for one over-arching purpose: Land astronauts on the moon and bring them back safely; exploration was an afterthought. Undoubtedly, the technology used then was cutting-edge but relatively simple vis à vis modern missions. Today’s lunar missions aim to achieve more; they involve landers with scientific instruments and rovers for exploration, besides plans for establishing long-term outposts.

This added complexity raises the risk of failure.

Another key factor is motivation and resources. The success of the Apollo programme came against the backdrop of the Cold War: The US, locked in a technological and ideological battle with the Soviet Union, almost single-mindedly focused on becoming the first to land a human on the moon. This urgency was backed by massive funding and a national commitment to a tight timeframe, triggering unprecedented development in rocketry, navigation, and spacecraft design.

Though international competition has intensified in recent years, the focus has shifted towards establishing a sustainable lunar presence rather than a one-off symbolic victory. This allows for a more measured approach, but achieving long-term goals comes with its own set of challenges, more so when the task is shared with startups.

Private companies, especially, have struggled with lunar landings. They are expected to repeat the successes of government space agencies, but without the same resources, knowledge, and the luxury to learn from repeated failures. For example, the Israeli Beresheet lander (April 2019), the Japanese lander built by ispace (April 2023), and the American Peregrine spacecraft (January 2024) all crashed during their attempts to land on the moon.

Also, despite advancements, space travel remains inherently risky.

Rockets are unfathomably complex machines operating in a harsh environment and despite rigorous testing and simulations, unforeseen issues can arise. The Apollo missions and legendary Saturn V rockets themselves faced numerous near misses and critical moments that could have easily resulted in disaster. Days before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon on July 21, 1969, the Soviet Union’s secret moon rocket — the N1 — had exploded in a fireball on July 3, at a remote launch site at Baikonur in Kazakhstan.

So, recent lunar mission failures are not a sign of regression but a step forward because each setback provides valuable data that helps engineers refine their designs and procedures.

The moon’s rugged allure remains undimmed, our resolve unbroken, our journey, though fraught, continues unabated.