Two Landers, One Mission: 2025 Lunar Exploration Begins

Just hours ago, SpaceX's Falcon 9 successfully deployed two lunar landers, marking the beginning of this year's efforts in lunar exploration. Firefly's Blue Ghost Mission 1 and ispace's Mission 2, part of the HAKUTO-R Venture Moon program, are now embarking on ambitious journeys to attempt lunar landings later this year.

These are among the first lunar landers of the year, with Intuitive Machines' IM-2 Athena targeting a launch at the end of February 2025. A follow-up mission, IM-3, is also anticipated to launch in early 2026, according to reports by NSF's Jeff Foust.

Following the setback of Peregrine's failure almost a year ago, Astrobotic has been diligently advancing its efforts toward lunar exploration. The company is reportedly making 'serious progress' in preparing for the launch of its Griffin Mission One, a pivotal mission slated for later this year. This mission aims to achieve a significant milestone by targeting a landing at South Pole. I will cover this in detail towards the launch of it.

On the other hand, Blue Origin is gearing up for its pathfinder mission, MK1, as part of its Blue Moon lunar lander program, with a launch planned for 2025. The MK1 is a robotic cargo lander engineered to deliver up to 3 metric tons of payload to any location on the lunar surface. The MK1 is specifically designed to bridge the gap between smaller CLPS landers and larger cargo vehicles including the ability to act as surface power source for comm relays and Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) capabilities.

Mission Profiles of the Duo

The mission profiles of these early 2025 landers set the stage for an ambitious year in lunar exploration. Firefly's Blue Ghost Mission 1 (BGM1) takes a relatively shorter route, aiming to complete its journey in about 45 days to attempt a landing at Mare Crisium, or the 'Sea of Crises.' Meanwhile, Japan's Resilience Lander is following a longer trajectory, taking approximately 4 to 5 months to reach the Moon, where it plans a landing at Mare Frigoris, or the 'Sea of Cold.' Notably, the RESILIENCE Lander's mission path mirrors that of JAXA's SLIM, which successfully achieved a soft touchdown last year.

Both landers target the Near-Side of the Moon, contrasting with the milestone set by last year's Chang'e 6 mission, which retrieved lunar regolith from the Far-Side.

Success 'criteria' of the Missions

What truly defines the success of a lunar mission? At first glance, the answer seems obvious: to land without breaking into pieces right? But is it really that simple? The more you ponder, the more nuanced it becomes. Is success measured by achieving a soft and gentle landing? By landing legs remaining fully intact? By the lander being operational immediately upon touchdown, or is a delay of a few days acceptable? These questions swirl in my mind, especially when reflecting on last year’s events, where some missions challenged traditional benchmarks for success

Media outlets like Space, Ars Technica, including NASA have often overlooked these nuances, framing any form of lunar landing—even one involving broken legs or a non-operational lander—as a mark of success, particularly from a commercial perspective. This approach reflects the increasing commercial pressures within the space industry, where even partial achievements are frequently marketed as "unqualified successes." This narrative raises questions about how success is defined and whether such standards dilute the scientific rigor traditionally associated with lunar exploration milestones.

This leniency, and the accompanying duplicity, have been called out by fellow Moon writer Jatan, who aptly questions

If we truly want sustainable lunar exploration, we also need to be true to ourselves. Do we desire our Moonbase to be built on a house of cards or cemented concrete?

To take a more scientific approach in determining whether a landing qualifies as a soft touchdown or a hard landing, I presented my thoughts and analysis on Intuitive Machines, "Odie." Stability must be regarded as a non-negotiable criterion for defining a soft landing. A truly soft touchdown ensures that the lander remains upright and structurally intact, capable of performing its intended operations without compromise.

Additionally, defining a successful mission requires clarity. A successful mission should mean that the lander becomes operational—at least once during its lifetime. This does not imply continuous activity throughout; rather, it reflects the lander fulfilling its key objectives, even if recovery occurs after challenges. JAXA's SLIM mission exemplified this, surprising many with its ability to recover and operate after enduring the harsh conditions of a lunar night.

In my view, a soft landing must guarantee stability, and a successful mission must involve operational activity—whether immediately or after recovery. These criteria ensure that we evaluate lunar missions with scientific rigor and fairness, providing clear and consistent benchmarks for success. Without such standards, we risk distorting achievements and undermining the progress of lunar exploration.

Over and above that, Japanese missions have demonstrated a commendable commitment to clear and specific success criteria. Over its entire lifetime, SLIM demonstrated a clear and structured approach to success, gradually meeting and exceeding its criteria. Starting with the minimum requirements, the mission progressed to fulfil additional objectives, with only minor corrections along the way. This step-by-step achievement underscores the Japanese commitment to transparent and precise mission evaluation, setting a strong example for future lunar exploration.

Following a similar approach to JAXA, ispace has outlined 10 clear milestones for its mission, covering every phase up to and including its lunar touchdown.

At the time of writing this article, ispace has already achieved the 3rd milestone in its 10-point mission plan. Meanwhile, its counterpart, Blue Ghost, has successfully established communication links with its ground station and completed its initial testing of NASA's RadPC payload, marking significant progress for both missions.

Landing Sites

Firefly's Blue Ghost Mission 1 (M1) is targeting a landing site with-in a 50m landing radius centered at 18.560N, 61.807 E. The site is close to Mons Latreille within Mare Crisium, a prominent basin in the northeast quadrant of the Moon's near side. Formed by early volcanic eruptions and subsequently flooded with basaltic lava over 3 billion years ago, Mare Crisium offers a rich geological history ideal for studying the Moon's ancient volcanic processes and crustal composition [1].

The site's geology also makes it a prime location for subsurface drilling operations. Instruments like LISTER (Lunar Instrumentation for Subsurface Thermal Exploration with Rapidity) will measure the Moon's internal heat flow at larger depths of 2–3 meters, providing insights into its thermal history. Additionally, Mare Crisium's regolith properties are key for understanding lunar soil characteristics and their interaction with the solar wind, furthering our knowledge of the Moon's surface environment and its evolution.

Hakuto-R Mission 2 (M2), featuring the RESILIENCE lander, targets a site in Mare Frigoris (Sea of Cold) at 60.5°N, 4.6°W. Located in the northern hemisphere of the Moon, Mare Frigoris is an expansive basaltic plain with a different geological context compared to Mare Crisium.

While Firefly’s mission focuses on precise thermal measurements and regolith interactions, Hakuto-R’s target offers a broader look at the evolution of basaltic plains in the northern regions. The site’s location provides a distinct environment, helping to expand knowledge of the Moon’s diverse geological history.

It's just the beginning..

The two missions, Firefly’s Blue Ghost Mission 1 and Hakuto-R Mission 2, are currently en route to the Moon, targeting distinct landing sites with different timelines. These ongoing missions showcase complementary approaches to lunar exploration, reflecting the growing diversity and ambition in lunar science.

While I wait for the new lunar missions scheduled for the coming months, I will closely monitor the progress of these landers. In the weeks ahead, I’ll provide updates on their journeys, including detailed terrain analyses and mission insights—just as I did for Intuitive Machines’ IM-1 mission. Stay tuned for the coverage as these missions attempt to reach their landing sites and unveil new lunar discoveries!

~FIN

[1] Sliz, M. U., & Spudis, P. D. (2016). New geologic map of the lunar Crisium basin. 47th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Abstract #1678 https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2016/pdf/1678.pdf