By Girish Linganna
Moon mission records suggest that reaching the moon’s surface is still not easy. The Vulcan Centaur rocket launched perfectly early Monday ,8th of January, morning from Cape Canaveral. It quickly left the solid rocket boosters behind and set the Peregrine spacecraft on the right path for its important journey to the moon.
The successful launch made Tory Bruno, the CEO of United Launch Alliance who made the rocket, very happy. He even shouted “Yee-haw!” because it was the first time the Vulcan rocket flew. However, the happy atmosphere didn’t last long. Astrobotic, the creators of Peregrine, discovered that the spacecraft was losing fuel. With not enough fuel left, the possibility of a gentle moon landing quickly dropped to none.
Over fifty years have passed since NASA successfully landed astronauts on the moon and safely returned them to Earth. Shouldn’t landing on the moon now be easy, or at least not too complicated? Hasn’t the rocket technology from the mid-20th century turned into common knowledge in the 21st century?
Peregrine is not the only recent setback in lunar missions. Although China and India have successfully landed robots on the moon, Russia’s Luna 25 experienced a crash landing last year. This happened almost six decades after the Soviet Union’s Luna 9 achieved the first soft landing. Moon landers made by private firms have all failed so far: Israel’s Beresheet lander in 2019 and a Japanese lander by ispace last year both crashed. Now, with Peregrine, it’s three failed attempts out of three.
One major issue, as Jan Wörner, a past head of the European Space Agency, told The Guardian, is about keeping things light. He says, “You’re always almost at the point of breaking because everything must be lightweight, or the spacecraft won’t work. You can’t add a lot of extra safety features.”
Almost every spacecraft is unique, like a one-of-a-kind model. Except for a few examples like the Galileo communication satellites, spacecraft are usually custom-built and not mass-produced. Spacecraft are not manufactured in large numbers using the same reliable systems and designs. Once spacecraft are launched into space, they have to operate independently. Wörner points out that if your car breaks down, you can get it fixed, but in space, there’s no such option for repairs. He emphasizes that space is a completely different environment.
The Galileo satellites are Europe’s global navigation system, offering highly accurate, guaranteed global positioning services under civilian control. It includes a constellation of 28 satellites primarily in Medium Earth Orbit, positioned to ensure broad coverage, even in high latitudes.
The moon has unique challenges. While it has gravity, about one-sixth of Earth’s, it lacks an atmosphere. This combination presents a distinct set of conditions for any lunar mission or exploration. In contrast to Mars, where spacecraft can use parachutes to slow down and land, moon landings rely solely on engine power. This is due to the moon’s lack of atmosphere, which makes traditional atmospheric braking methods inapplicable. For smaller probes that typically have just one engine, steering the engine is crucial for controlling their descent to the moon. This is because there’s no alternative method to guide their landing due to the lack of atmosphere.
To further complicate the engineering, the engine must be modulated, meaning its thrust can be finely controlled and adjusted as necessary. This is essential for precise manoeuvring and landing on the moon. Nico Dettmann, who leads the lunar exploration group at ESA, explained that engines on spacecraft usually ignite to provide a consistent level of thrust. This statement emphasizes the typical operation of spacecraft engines, which are designed to deliver a steady force. To change the thrust during operations adds a lot more complexity.”
Despite the success of the initial moon landings in the 1960s, it’s still difficult to understand why the moon continues to be a challenging destination. This perspective highlights the ongoing complexities and challenges in lunar exploration, even after decades of technological advancements.
The history of moon missions gives us some insight: after the Apollo program, interest in lunar landers decreased. This shift in focus suggests changes in space exploration priorities and challenges over time. In 2013, China’s Chang’e 3 marked the first gentle landing on the moon since the Soviet Union’s Luna 24 in 1976. This event ended a long hiatus in such lunar missions since the earlier era of space exploration.
Dettmann points out that for many years, there was a lack of development in lander technology. He suggests that this technology isn’t so widespread that one can easily learn from others’ experiences. This highlights the uniqueness and scarcity of knowledge in this specific area of space technology.
Testing is essential, especially for spacecraft. Unlike rockets, which can be secured and thoroughly tested, spacecraft have fewer testing options. Tests can verify the functionality of propulsion, navigation, communication systems, and instruments on a spacecraft. Additionally, spacecraft are subjected to intense shaking tests to ensure they can withstand the vigorous vibrations of launch. However, effectively simulating a moon landing remains a challenge.”Dettmann notes that qualifying and validating a lunar lander is significantly more challenging compared to many other space systems.”
During the space race, NASA invested an enormous $25 billion in the Apollo program, experiencing numerous failures before finally succeeding in landing on the moon. NASA now possesses 70 years of accumulated expertise and a culture focused on designing, constructing, and testing spacecraft. With its Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, NASA aims to reduce expenses and boost the American space sector. It plans to achieve this by contracting private firms like Astrobotic and Houston’s Intuitive Machines to transport its instruments to the moon.
This approach means accepting a higher likelihood of mission failures, so more unsuccessful missions are anticipated. “These companies are comparatively inexperienced.””Compared to typical budgets, these companies are conducting these missions with much smaller amounts of money,” Dr. Joshua Rasera, a research associate at Imperial College London, told a media outlet. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion that this method will ultimately prove advantageous, as the companies will learn and grow from their challenges. He adds, “In the long run, it turns out to be more cost-effective across all missions, even if the initial ones might end in crashes.” (IPA)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
