A Japanese lander crashed on the Moon after losing track of its location

A small rover and a number of experiments meant to show how future missions could mine and harvest lunar resources were destroyed Thursday when a robotic lander created by a Japanese company called ispace fell to the Moon’s surface.

Just before the Resilience lunar lander was scheduled to land in the Sea of Cold, also known as Mare Frigoris, a basaltic plain in the northern hemisphere of the Moon, ground crews at ispace’s mission control center in Tokyo lost communication with the spacecraft.

Space officials verified what many observers had suspected a few hours later. The mission did not succeed. It’s the second time in as many attempts that iSpace has failed to land on the moon.

“We were hoping to make Mission 2 a success, but we haven’t been successful,” stated Takeshi Hakamada, the CEO and founder of the company.

The Resilience lander’s final data, if accurate, showed it at a height of about 630 feet (192 meters) and descending too quickly for a safe landing, according to Ryo Ujiie, chief technology officer at ispace. “There was not enough deceleration. Ujiie informed reporters during a press conference that it was a fact. “We need to examine the reasons behind our failure to land. “..”.

A press release from the company stated that there were “delays in obtaining valid measurement values” for a laser rangefinder that was used to measure the lander’s altitude. As it descends, the downward-facing laser pulses light in the direction of the Moon and measures how long it takes to get a reflection. The lander’s guidance system determines its altitude above the lunar surface using this time delay at light speed. However, on Thursday, there was a problem with the altitude measurement system.

“As a result, the lander was unable to decelerate sufficiently to reach the required speed for the planned lunar landing,” ispace stated. The current consensus is that the lander most likely made a hard landing on the lunar surface given these conditions. “.

Controllers hoped to restore communication by sending a command to reboot the lander, but the Resilience spacecraft did not respond.

“Our top priority is to quickly analyze the telemetry data we have obtained thus far and work diligently to identify the cause,” Hakamada said in a statement, adding that there is currently no chance of a successful lunar landing. By reporting the results to our shareholders, payload clients, Hakuto-R partners, government representatives, and all ispace supporters, we will work to rebuild confidence. “..”.

surmounting challenges.

The Hakuto name refers to ispace’s inception in 2010 as a competitor for the Google Lunar X-Prize, a competition that offered a $20 million grand prize to the first team with private funding to land a lander on the moon. The name of Hakamada’s group was Hakuto, which translates to “white rabbit” in Japanese. Without a winner, the prize ended in 2018, which caused some of the teams to disband or find new uses. Hakamada persisted in his efforts, obtained additional funds, and relaunched the program under the moniker Hakuto-R.

The name of iSpace’s second lunar lander comes from this tale of tenacity. Though Thursday’s failure is a setback to Hakamada’s project, the mission was closer to the Moon than the ispace’s initial landing attempt in 2023.

Hakamada stated, via an interpreter, “As a fact, we tried twice and we haven’t been able to land on the Moon.”. Technically speaking, we must state that landing on the moon is challenging. It’s not easy, we know that. Not everyone has the ability to do it. Although we are aware that it is difficult, the key is that it is not impossible. It isn’t impossible because private companies in the US have successfully landed, and JAXA in Japan has also done so. So, how do we get past our obstacles?

A comparable issue with altitude measurement caused iSpace’s first lander to crash on the Moon in April 2023. Though it was actually running its engine to hover at a height of three miles (5 kilometers), the spacecraft believed it was on the Moon’s surface. When the spacecraft’s fuel ran out, it fell freely and struck the Moon.

Engineers determined that the most likely cause of the altitude-measurement issue was software. A 10,000-foot (3,000-meter) cliff was crossed by iSpace’s lander during descent, and the spacecraft’s computer mistook the abrupt change in altitude.

The failure mode on Thursday was “similar” to the first mission two years ago, according to Ujiie, who is in charge of ispace’s technical teams. The Resilience lander, however, flew with a new kind of laser rangefinder after ispace’s previous supplier stopped making the device, and engineers noticed different behavior from that lander, at least in the initial data reviews.

Ujiie stated, “We improved the software from Mission 1 to Mission 2.”. We also made improvements to the landing site’s approach. We need to do more research before we can provide you with any specific answers because we observe different phenomena than Mission 1. “.

Had ispace made a flawless landing on Thursday, a tiny rover created by ispace’s European subsidiary would have been launched by the Resilience spacecraft. The European Space Agency provided assistance, and the Luxembourg Space Agency contributed a portion of the rover’s funding. It was equipped with a shovel to collect a tiny sample of lunar soil and a camera to capture a picture of the sample. To demonstrate how the government might eventually buy material from commercial mining companies, NASA and iSpace signed a contract to buy the lunar soil as a symbolic proof of concept.

In order to showcase technologies capable of separating water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen—two essential resources for a future Moon base—the lander also carried a water electrolyzer experiment. The Resilience spacecraft carried additional payloads, such as cameras, a food production experiment, a radiation monitor, and the Swedish art project “MoonHouse.”. “.”.

With a mass of roughly 1 metric ton (2,200 pounds) when fully fueled, the spacecraft chassis used for iSpace’s first two landing attempts was roughly the size of a compact car. The company plans to use a larger lander for its third landing attempt in 2027. The next time, iSpace will visit the Moon in collaboration with Draper Laboratory, which has a NASA contract to transport experiments to the lunar surface, and the company’s US subsidiary.

history.

Launched in January atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, the Resilience lander traveled into space alongside Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost, a commercial Moon lander. The lander of Firefly made a soft landing on March 2 after traveling to the Moon in a more direct manner. During its two weeks of operation, Blue Ghost accomplished all of its goals on the lunar surface.

Ispace’s lander traveled a slower route, using less energy and fuel to reach the Moon before launching into lunar orbit last month. After entering orbit, the lander adjusted its course a few more times to align with its landing spot before starting its last descent on Thursday.

A privately built Moon lander attempted a controlled landing on the lunar surface for the seventh time on Thursday.

The two most successful businesses are from Texas. The first time a commercial lander made it to the lunar surface undamaged was in February 2024, when Houston-based Intuitive Machines successfully landed its Odysseus spacecraft on the moon. However, after landing and accomplishing a few small goals, the lander overturned, ending its mission. Although it fell and didn’t last as long as the company’s first mission, a second Intuitive Machines lander made it to the Moon intact in March of this year.

Firefly’s Blue Ghost achieved all of its goals and became the first privately owned spacecraft to successfully land and operate on the Moon, operating for two weeks after reaching the lunar surface.

All three companies—Intuitive Machines, Firefly, and Astrobotic Technology—have begun their lunar missions as part of a NASA initiative to develop a commercial market for lunar transportation. Almost immediately after leaving Earth, Astrobotic’s first lander malfunctioned. With only minimal involvement from NASA, Luxembourg, and the Japanese space agency, the first two missions launched by iSpace were essentially entirely private endeavors.

Since the start of commercial lunar travel in 2019, there isn’t much historical data to assess the industry’s future. The first landing attempts had a 50/50 chance of success, according to Thomas Zurbuchen, the head of NASA’s science vision at the time, when the agency began awarding contracts for commercial lunar missions. Overall, with one complete success and a few partial successes, NASA’s experience with Intuitive Machines, Firefly, and Astrobotic is rather close to Zurbuchen’s estimate.

If you include private missions from Israel’s Beresheet lander and iSpace, the commercial track record gets worse.

But the dream hasn’t been abandoned by Hakamada or ispace. The same NASA program that awarded contracts to Intuitive Machines, Firefly, and Astrobotic will also launch the company’s third mission. Hakamada asserted that the success of Firefly and Intuitive Machines proved the viability of the commercial model for lunar missions.

Two businesses that I mentioned are the ones that have the landers. Also, Blue Origin might be on the horizon. “Ispace is also a possibility,” Hakamada added. So, not many businesses. We want to catch up as quickly as we can. “..”.

It’s too soon to tell how Thursday’s failure will affect ispace’s upcoming mission with NASA and Draper.

“I have to admit that we are behind,” ispace’s director and chief financial officer, Jumpei Nozaki, stated. We do not, however, believe that we are currently lagging behind the leading group. We can’t make that decision yet. Since there aren’t many players in the world capable of sending landers to the moon, we still have a slight advantage. “.”.

According to Hakamada, “I must lead this company and have a strong will to move forward, so it’s not time for me to cry,” although there were moments when she nearly broke down.