A robotic lander, Resilience, developed by the Japanese company ispace, has tragically plummeted to the Moon’s surface. The incident occurred on Thursday, resulting in the destruction of not only the lander but also a small rover and several scientific experiments meant to pioneer the future of lunar resource mining.
Ground teams at ispace’s mission control in Tokyo lost contact with the Resilience moments before its anticipated landing in Mare Frigoris, known as the Sea of Cold, located in the Moon’s northern hemisphere.
Hours later, officials from ispace confirmed the worst fears of many observers: the mission was lost, marking the second consecutive failure for the company in its attempts to land on the Moon.
“We wanted to make Mission 2 a success, but unfortunately we haven’t been able to land,” stated Takeshi Hakamada, ispace’s founder and CEO.
Ryo Ujiie, the chief technology officer at ispace, provided insight into the final data received from the Resilience lander before contact was lost. It indicated the lander was descending too rapidly, at an altitude of approximately 630 feet (192 meters).
“The deceleration was not enough. That was a fact,” Ujiie remarked during a press conference.
Following the loss of contact, controllers attempted to reboot the lander, hoping to restore communication, but the Resilience spacecraft remained silent.
“Given that there is currently no prospect of a successful lunar landing, our top priority is to swiftly analyze the telemetry data we have obtained thus far and work diligently to identify the cause,” said Hakamada in a statement.
Hakamada emphasized his commitment to restoring trust in the company by providing a thorough report of their findings to shareholders, payload customers, government officials, and supporters.
The Hakuto name, representing ispace’s early beginnings in 2010 as a competitor for the Google Lunar X-Prize, symbolizes the journey of resilience.
Hakamada noted the challenges they have faced and acknowledged that landing on the Moon is a technically difficult task.
“It’s not something that everyone can do. We know it’s hard, but the important point is it’s not impossible,” he declared.
He pointed to the successes of private U.S. companies and Japan’s JAXA as evidence of landing feasibility on the Moon, and challenged his team to find ways to overcome their hurdles.
This is not ispace’s first attempt at landing on the Moon. In April 2023, the company’s first lander also crashed due to an altitude measurement failure.
That mission miscalculated its altitude, believing it was on the surface when it was actually hovering three miles (five kilometers) above the Moon.
The spacecraft lost fuel and plummeted to the surface.
Ujiie stated that Thursday’s failure exhibited a similarity to their previous attempt, with both incidents resulting from altitude measurement issues.
However, preliminary reviews of the data from Resilience indicated different behavior compared to the first mission, particularly as the lander flew with a new type of laser rangefinder after ispace’s previous supplier discontinued the device.
“From Mission 1 to Mission 2, we improved the software. Also, we improved how to approach the landing site… We see different phenomena from Mission 1, so we have to do more analysis to give you any concrete answers,” Ujiie explained.
Had the landing been successful, the Resilience spacecraft was set to deploy a small rover, developed by ispace’s European subsidiary.
This rover carried a shovel to collect lunar soil and a camera to capture images of the sample, partially funded by the Luxembourg Space Agency with support from the European Space Agency.
NASA had also contracted ispace for a symbolic procurement of the lunar soil, showcasing a future model where government agencies might acquire materials from commercial mining companies.
In addition to the rover, the Resilience lander was equipped with a water electrolyzer designed to demonstrate techniques for splitting water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen, essential for future lunar bases.
The mission carried several other payloads, which included cameras, a food production experiment, a radiation monitor, and a Swedish art project entitled “MoonHouse.”
The chassis used for ispace’s initial two landing attempts was roughly the size of a compact car and weighed about 1 metric ton (2,200 pounds) when fully fuelled.
Aiming to regain momentum, the company is planning a third landing attempt in 2027, using a larger lander in collaboration with its U.S. subsidiary and Draper Laboratory.
Following the trajectories of recent lunar missions reflects the challenges ispace faces. The Resilience lander launched in January aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket with another commercial Moon lander called Blue Ghost from Firefly Aerospace.
While Firefly’s lander took a more direct route to the Moon and successfully landed on March 2, operating effectively for two weeks, ispace’s approach was slower, prioritizing fuel efficiency with its trajectory before entering lunar orbit last month.
Thursday’s failed landing attempt marks the seventh effort by a privately developed Moon lander to achieve a controlled touchdown on the lunar surface.
Competitive edge seems to be a factor in this developing landscape, especially as two Texas-based companies, including Houston’s Intuitive Machines, have demonstrated some success recently.
Intuitive Machines was able to land its Odysseus spacecraft on the Moon in February 2024, a milestone for commercial landers, despite the vehicle tipping over shortly after touchdown.
Another Intuitive Machines mission followed in March, which also resulted in a successful lunar landing but ultimately failed to sustain operations for an extended period.
Firefly’s Blue Ghost stands out as the first fully successful privately owned spacecraft to not only land on the Moon but also operate successfully afterward.
Other competitors like Astrobotic Technology saw their initial lander fail shortly after departing Earth.
In contrast, ispace’s first missions were largely private ventures with limited engagement from agencies such as JAXA and NASA.
Given that commercial lunar travel began in 2019, the industry doesn’t yet boast an extensive track record, prompting cautious optimism regarding future endeavors.
The risks were acknowledged by Thomas Zurbuchen, the former science chief at NASA, who estimated initial landing attempts would encounter a success rate close to 50 percent.
Overall, the experiences of Intuitive Machines, Firefly, and Astrobotic align with this estimation, revealing a mix of successes and setbacks amongst commercial lunar missions.
However, including ispace and Israel’s Beresheet failures, the statistics paint a more complex picture that underscores the challenges of developing reliable lunar landing technologies.
Nonetheless, Hakamada and ispace refuse to abandon their lunar aspirations.
As they prepare for their third mission, plans are already underway to operate within the NASA contractual framework that has benefited other commercial lunar ventures.
Hakamada mentioned Firefly and Intuitive Machines as examples of viable models for private lunar missions.
“We would like to catch up as soon as possible,” he expressed.
Yet the aftermath of Thursday’s setback raises questions about how it will affect ispace’s ongoing partnership with Draper and NASA for future missions.
According to Jumpei Nozaki, the director and chief financial officer at ispace, while there are feelings of being behind, there remains a belief that they are not yet out of contention with the leaders in the lunar exploration landscape.
“The players in the world that can send landers to the Moon are very few, so we still have some competitive edge,” Nozaki stated.
Hakamada closed the discussion on an emotional note, admitting to moments of distress.
“Honestly, there were some times I almost cried, but I need to lead this company, and I need to have a strong will to move forward, so it’s not time for me to cry,” Hakamada concluded.
image source from：https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/06/a-japanese-lander-crashed-on-the-moon-after-losing-track-of-its-location/
