Even in these modern times, it’s not easy to land on the moon

Controllers at the iSpace mission control center in Tokyo received telemetry from the Hakuto-R lander right up to the moment when it should have landed. The controllers were not able to reestablish contact with the lander. The assumption is that the Hakuto failed to achieve a soft landing on the lunar surface. A preliminary analysis suggests that the vehicle ran out of propellent before it presumably crashed.

The Hakuto-R launched last December aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9. Among the payloads the lander carried was a UAE-designed rover dubbed the Rashid. The iSpace lunar lander undertook a voyage to the moon lasting over three months before attempting to land on its surface. The plan would have been a 10-day sojourn on the moon’s surface before the advent of lunar night rendered the solar panels on the Hakuto-R inoperative. The science that could have been returned would have been a bonus to successfully landing the craft on the moon.

The Hakuto-R’s apparent failure is the third recent unsuccessful attempt to land on the moon. Both the Israeli SpaceIL Beresheet 1 and the Vikram lander portion of the Indian ISRO Chandrayaan-2 also failed to achieve a soft landing.

Why is it so hard to land on the moon?

The specific causes of the Beresheet and the Vikram mishaps are well known. An “inertial measurement” device on the Israeli lander is said to have failed, causing the premature shutdown of the landing engines. When the controllers restarted the engines, it was too late to slow the lander enough to achieve a soft landing. The Vikram mishap has been ascribed to a last-minute “software glitch.”

Both SpaceIL and the ISRO are incorporating lessons learned for their next attempts at lunar landings. No doubt iSpace will do the same for their second attempt, scheduled to take place in 2024.

Still, it’s puzzling that three attempts to land on the moon have failed in recent years. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, both NASA and the Soviets achieved several lunar landings. NASA pulled off six manned landings on the moon between 1969 and 1972. That said, Apollo 11 might have ended in disaster had Neil Armstrong not taken manual control of the lunar lander. Also, the Soviet Luna 15, Luna 18 and Luna 23 failed to achieve a soft landing. The NASA Surveyor 4 lost contact with Earth after landing on the moon. More recently, the Chinese have achieved a number of uncrewed lunar landings.

Is there a common factor among the various lunar landing failures, both during the Apollo era and the present? Maybe each has its own specific and unrelated cause, but the question does merit looking into it. Sometime in the not-too-distant future, a NASA-led coalition of nations and private companies intends to establish a base on the lunar south pole. The ability to land on the moon consistently and safely is crucial if the goal of a permanent presence on the moon is to be achieved.

In the meantime, Astrobotic Technology, in Pittsburgh, Pa., and Intuitive Machines, in Houston, Texas, are next up to attempt a commercial lunar landing later in 2023. Both companies were gracious in offering their condolences to their competitors at iSpace.

Astrobotic Technology tweeted, “We congratulate the @ispace_inc team on accomplishing a significant number of milestones on their way to today’s landing attempt. We hope everyone recognizes today is not the day to shy away from pursuing the lunar frontier, but a chance to learn from adversity and push forward.”

Intuitive Machines added, “The @ispace_inc team achieved remarkable success on its journey to the Moon. The team’s continued commitment to advancing space exploration is an opportunity to learn and look forward to future advancements in the emerging lunar economy.”

Both companies should hope that the failure of the Hakuto-R will be an opportunity to learn. Very soon, teams from each firm will experience the nail-biting, blood-pressure-raising attempt to land on the moon. Will one or both teams experience the awe-inspiring return of telemetry from the moon’s surface, indicating a successful landing? Or will one or both of their attempts also be met with silence, indicating mission failure?

One sincerely hopes that the outcome is the former and not the latter.

Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled, “Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?” as well as “The Moon, Mars and Beyond,” and, most recently, “Why is America Going Back to the Moon?” He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. He is published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The Hill, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Washington Post, among other venues.