Lunar Landing Attempt by Spacecraft This Week Follows Months of Travel to the Moon: Explanation Provided
Staunchly sign up for our sciencey fun newsletter - the Cosmic Chronicles! Dive into the cosmos with thrilling updates, astronomical breakthroughs, and much more!!
A SpaceX missile landed in Florida, propelling twin lunar landers a while back. Blue Ghost from Firefly Aerospace blasted off, shooting straight to the moon, and in March, it made history as the very first robotic commercial spacecraft to gracefully land vertically on the lunar surface.
The other spacie, Ispace, is making its way to the destination. Ispace's Resilience lander is forecast to perform a landing attempt at 3:24 PM ET on Thursday - about three months after Blue Ghost claimed its historic victory.
Ispace isn't overly fussed about lagging behind when it comes to the "first" milestone. Company executives maintain that a slow and steady voyage to the moon offers significant long-term advantages.
Jumpei Nozaki, Ispace's CFO, shared this sentiment with our publication in January, stating, "What's good about this multi-month run to the moon is, there are little, daily things happening...something we didn't expect...This travel to the moon is truly a learning experience."
Speaking of learning, check this out! Three teams of Ispace staff members have been transitioning in and out of the company's mission control room in Tokyo, gaining priceless experience managing the uncertain and daring physics of deep-space exploration - a rare chance, the company's founder and CEO, Takeshi Hakamada, revealed.
This leisurely approach to the Moon, however, doesn't guarantee landing success. Ispace's very first attempt to place a spacecraft on the lunar surface ended with a disheartening crash landing in April 2023 following a 4 1/2-month journey from Earth.
Resilience's drawn-out trip offers Ispace benefits as well as drawbacks.
Sailing to the moon in months, weeks, or days
Resilience is riding a gentle, energy-efficient path to the Moon, often referred to as a low-energy transfer. It's similar to pedaling your bike to a friend's house and cruising on the downhills while conserving fuel or energy.
On such an itinerary, Resilience spaceship voyages for hundreds of thousands of miles, venturing deep into space and with the Moon's gravity attracting it into lunar orbit over time.
Contrastingly, other vehicles, such as Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost and the Nova-C lander produced by Intuitive Machines utilized large engines to propel themselves on a much more direct path. Intuitive Machines' newest Nova-C lander, for instance, arrived at the moon in roughly a week following takeoff.
Compared to lunar landers developed by Ispace's rivals, Resilience is lightweight and economical with a smaller rocket engine.
What's next for Ispace's Resilience lander
Even so, the company remains hopeful that three science instruments currently on board Resilience will conduct groundbreaking tests upon reaching the Moon on Thursday.
Resilience carries a module for testing algae-based food production, a deep-space radiation monitor, and a water electrolyzer experiment, which aims to manufacture hydrogen and oxygen in the lunar environment.
Ispace's inaugural lunar lander crashed near Atlas crater, a feature on the northeast side of the Moon's near face, in April 2023. This time, the company is aiming for a smoother landing in a different lunar locality: Mare Frigoris, a 750-mile-long (1,200-kilometer) plain in the Moon's far northern reaches.
Mare Frigoris boasts a flatter landscape than the Atlas crater region, potentially offering easier navigation. Ispace stated that the new landing site was selected because it offers "flexibility."
The company plans to broadcast Thursday's touchdown attempt on YouTube and X.
If Resilience successfully lands, Ispace will join elite company as the second commercial firm outside the U.S. to pull off this extraordinary feat. Ispace would also join Firefly, whose Blue Ghost lander made a pristine landing in March, in becoming just two companies to accomplish a fully successful touchdown of a robotic lunar lander.
The examination of slow, low-energy transfers and direct routes for lunar landings is a complex issue that requires trade-offs between numerous factors. Here's a glance at the advantages and disadvantages of each approach:
Advantages of Slow, Low-Energy Transfers:
- Fuel Efficiency: Utilizing gentle, low-energy transfers such as gravitational assists or low-force propulsion can significantly reduce the fuel consumption necessary for a mission.
- Cost Reduction: Lower fuel consumption translates into lighter spacecraft, which are less costly to launch.
- Payload Capacity: With less fuel needed for propulsion, there's more room for scientific instruments, supplies, or even personnel, enhancing the mission's effectiveness.
Disadvantages of Slow, Low-Energy Transfers:
- Increased Travel Time: The slow and efficient approach requires more time to reach the Moon, which can prolong exposure to space radiation and potential solar flares.
- Complexity and Risk: These trajectories often involve more intricate planning and execution, increasing the risk of mission failure.
- Limited Flexibility: Once a spacecraft is on a slow, low-energy trajectory, it may have minimal ability to change course quickly or respond to unexpected events.
Advantages of Direct Routes:
- Faster Travel Time: Direct routes, such as high-thrust trajectories, significantly reduce the travel time to the Moon, facilitating quicker deployment of resources and personnel.
- Flexibility and Control: Direct routes offer more flexibility in terms of trajectory adjustments and emergency maneuvers.
- Simplified Mission Planning: The direct approach often involves simpler mission planning since the trajectory is more straightforward and less dependent on complex gravitational interactions.
Disadvantages of Direct Routes:
- Higher Energy Requirements: Direct routes require high-thrust propulsion, which consumes more fuel and increases the spacecraft's size.
- Increased Heat and Stress: The high-thrust phases of a direct mission can generate significant heat and stress on the spacecraft.
Ultimately, the choice between a slow, low-energy transfer and a direct route for lunar landings depends on the mission's specific objectives, budget constraints, and whether the need for rapid deployment outweighs fuel efficiency and cost savings.
- With Resilience's upcoming landing attempt, Ispace aims to advance the field of space-and-astronomy through the testing of three science instruments, including a water electrolyzer experiment for manufacturing hydrogen and oxygen in lunar environments, demonstrating the integration of technology and science.
- The contrasting methods of lunar lander transportation, such as Low-Energy Transfers (as used by Ispace) and direct routes (as used by Firefly Aerospace and Intuitive Machines), present intriguing differences in cost, speed, and fuel efficiency, furthering the debate within the realm of science and technology about the best approach for space exploration.
