{"parse":{"title":"Moon landing","pageid":1558077,"revid":1375378525,"redirects":[],"text":"

This article is about lunar landings in general. For the Cold War \"Race to the Moon\", see Space Race. For the first crewed Moon landing, see Apollo 11. For other uses, see Moon landing (disambiguation).

\n\n\n

$\"Map$ \n A clickable map of the locations of all successful soft landings on the Moon to date\n \n \n \n Luna program (USSR) \n Surveyor program (United States) \n Apollo program (United States) \n Chang'e program (China) \n Chandrayaan program (India) \n SLIM (Japan) \n Commercial Lunar Payload Services (United States) \n \n Dates are landing dates in Coordinated Universal Time. Except for the Apollo program, all soft landings were uncrewed. Asterisk indicates partial success.\n \n(Interactive version)

A Moon landing (also known as a lunar landing) is the arrival of a crewed or robotic lander on the Moon. The first human-made object to touch the Moon was Luna 2 in 1959,^[3] and the first crewed mission to land on the Moon was Apollo 11 in 1969.^[4]\n

There were six crewed landings between 1969 and 1972 and numerous uncrewed landings. All crewed missions to the Moon were conducted by the Apollo program, with the last departing in December 1972. After Luna 24 in 1976, there were no soft landings—landings without significant damage—on the Moon until Chang'e 3 in 2013. All soft landings took place on the near side of the Moon until Chang'e 4 landed on the far side of the Moon in 2019.^[5]\n

\n\n

Uncrewed landings

Government landings

Six government space agencies, Interkosmos, NASA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA and ESA, have reached the Moon with uncrewed missions. The Soviet Union (Interkosmos), the United States (NASA), China (CNSA), India (ISRO),^[6] and Japan (JAXA)^[7] are the only five nations to have successfully achieved soft landings.\n

The Soviet Union performed the first hard Moon landing, in which the spacecraft intentionally crashed into the Moon at high speed, with the Luna 2 spacecraft in 1959, a feat the U.S. duplicated in 1962 with Ranger 4.\n

Following their initial hard landings on the Moon, sixteen Soviet, U.S., Chinese and Indian spacecraft have used braking rockets (retrorockets) to make soft landings and perform scientific operations on the lunar surface. In 1966 the Soviet Union accomplished the first soft landings and took the first pictures from the lunar surface during the Luna 9 and Luna 13 missions. The U.S. followed with five Surveyor soft landings. China's ongoing Chang'e program has landed 4 times since 2013, achieving robotic soil sample return and the first landing on the far side of the Moon.\n

On 23 August 2023, ISRO successfully landed its Chandrayaan-3 module in the lunar south pole region, making India the fourth nation to successfully complete a soft landing on the Moon.^[8] Chandrayaan-3 saw a successful soft landing of its Vikram lander and Pragyan rover at 6.04 pm IST (1234 GMT), marking the first uncrewed soft landing in the little-explored region.^[9]\n

On 19 January 2024, JAXA successfully landed its SLIM lander, making Japan the fifth nation to successfully complete a soft landing.^[10]\n

Commercial landings

Two organizations have attempted but failed to achieve soft landings: Israeli private space agency SpaceIL with their Beresheet spacecraft (2019), and Japanese company ispace's Hakuto-R Mission 1 (2023).\n

On 22 February 2024, Intuitive Machine's Odysseus successfully landed on the Moon after taking off on a SpaceX Falcon 9 liftoff on 15 February 2024 in a mission by NASA, SpaceX, and Intuitive Machines, marking the United States' first soft unmanned Moon landing in over 50 years and as the first successful landing of a privately owned spacecraft on the Moon.^[11]^[12] The lander broke a strut during landing and rested at an angle of 30° to the lunar surface and 18° to horizontal, with communications impaired.^[13]^[14] It operated until February 29, 2024.^[15]\n

On 2 March 2025, Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost lunar lander made the first fully successful commercial Moon landing after softly landing upright near Mons Latreille in Mare Crisium. Blue Ghost operated for 14 days, including 5 hours into the lunar night, marking it the longest commercial operations on the Moon until now. Part of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services initiative, Firefly operated 10 NASA instruments aboard Blue Ghost. The mission concluded on 16 March 2025.^[16]^[17]^[18]\n

Crewed landings

Further information: Apollo program

A total of twelve astronauts have landed on the Moon. This was accomplished with two pilot-astronauts flying a Lunar Module on each of six NASA missions. The missions spanned a 41-month period starting 20 July 1969, beginning with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on Apollo 11, and ending on 14 December 1972 with Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt on Apollo 17. Cernan was the last man to step off the lunar surface.\n

All Apollo lunar missions had a third crew member who remained on board the command module.\n

Scientific background

To get to the Moon, a spacecraft must first leave Earth's gravity well; currently, the only practical means is a rocket. Unlike airborne vehicles such as balloons and jet aircraft, a rocket can continue accelerating in the vacuum outside the atmosphere.\n

Upon approach of the target moon, a spacecraft will be drawn ever closer to its surface at increasing speeds due to gravity. In order to land intact it must decelerate to less than about 160 kilometres per hour (100 mph) and be ruggedized to withstand a \"hard landing\" impact, or it must decelerate to negligible speed at contact for a \"soft landing\" (the only option for humans). The first three attempts by the U.S. to perform a successful hard Moon landing with a ruggedized seismometer package in 1962 all failed.^[19] The Soviets first achieved the milestone of a hard lunar landing with a ruggedized camera in 1966, followed only months later by the first uncrewed soft lunar landing by the U.S.\n

The speed of a crash landing on its surface is typically between 70 and 100% of the escape velocity of the target moon, and thus this is the total velocity which must be shed from the target moon's gravitational attraction for a soft landing to occur. For Earth's Moon, the escape velocity is 2.38 kilometres per second (1.48 mi/s).^[20] The change in velocity (referred to as a delta-v) is usually provided by a landing rocket, which must be carried into space by the original launch vehicle as part of the overall spacecraft. An exception is the soft moon landing on Saturn's moon Titan carried out by the Huygens probe in 2005. As the moon with the thickest atmosphere, landings on Titan may be accomplished by using atmospheric entry techniques that are generally lighter in weight than a rocket with equivalent capability.\n

The Soviets succeeded in making the first crash landing on the Moon in 1959.^[21] Crash landings^[22] may occur because of malfunctions in a spacecraft, or they can be deliberately arranged for vehicles which do not have an onboard landing rocket. There have been many such Moon crashes, often with their flight path controlled to impact at precise locations on the lunar surface. For example, during the Apollo program the S-IVB third stage of the Saturn V rocket as well as the spent ascent stage of the Lunar Module were deliberately crashed on the Moon several times to provide impacts registering as a moonquake on seismometers that had been left on the lunar surface. Such crashes were instrumental in mapping the internal structure of the Moon.\n

To return to Earth, the escape velocity of the Moon must be overcome for the spacecraft to escape the gravity well of the Moon. Rockets must be used to leave the Moon and return to space. Upon reaching Earth, atmospheric entry techniques are used to absorb the kinetic energy of a returning spacecraft and reduce its speed for safe landing. These functions greatly complicate a moon landing mission and lead to many additional operational considerations. Any moon departure rocket must first be carried to the Moon's surface by a moon landing rocket, increasing the latter's required size. The Moon departure rocket, larger moon landing rocket and any Earth atmosphere entry equipment such as heat shields and parachutes must in turn be lifted by the original launch vehicle, greatly increasing its size by a significant and almost prohibitive degree.\n

Political background

Main article: Space Race

The political context of the 1960s helps to parse both the United States and Soviet Union's efforts to land spacecraft, and eventually humans, on the Moon. World War II had introduced many new and deadly innovations including blitzkrieg-style surprise attacks used in the invasion of Poland and Finland, as well as in the attack on Pearl Harbor; the V-2 rocket, a ballistic missile which killed thousands in attacks on London and Antwerp; and the atom bomb, which killed hundreds of thousands in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the 1950s, tensions mounted between the two ideologically opposed superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union that had emerged as victors in the conflict, particularly after the development by both countries of the hydrogen bomb.\n

On 4 October 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1 as the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth and so initiated the Space Race. This unexpected event was a source of pride to the Soviets and shock to the U.S., who could now potentially be surprise attacked by nuclear-tipped Soviet rockets in under 30 minutes.^[23] The steady beeping of the radio beacon aboard Sputnik 1 as it passed overhead every 96 minutes, and the sight of the much larger and visible co-orbiting R-7 booster that had placed it into orbit, was widely viewed on both sides^[24] as effective propaganda to Third World countries demonstrating the technological superiority of the Soviet political system compared to that of the U.S. \n

This perception was reinforced by a string of subsequent rapid-fire Soviet space achievements. In 1959, the R-7 rocket was used to launch the first escape from Earth's gravity into a solar orbit, the first crash impact onto the surface of the Moon, and the first photography of the never-before-seen far side of the Moon. These were the Luna 1, Luna 2, and Luna 3 spacecraft.\n

The U.S. response to these Soviet achievements was to greatly accelerate previously existing military space and missile projects and to create a civilian space agency, NASA. Military efforts were initiated to develop and produce mass quantities of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that would bridge the so-called missile gap and enable a policy of deterrence to nuclear war with the Soviets known as mutual assured destruction or MAD. These newly developed missiles were made available to civilians of NASA for various projects (which would have the added benefit of demonstrating the payload, guidance accuracy and reliabilities of U.S. ICBMs to the Soviets).\n

To out-perform the Soviet Union the United States Air Force proposed the Project A119, detonating a nuclear explosive on the Moon. With research done by Carl Sagan on its effects, a human landing was ultimately favoured, since the negative outcomes were too great.\n

Early Soviet uncrewed lunar missions (1958–1965)

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, historical records were released to allow the true accounting of Soviet lunar efforts. Unlike the U.S. tradition of assigning a particular mission name in advance of a launch, the Soviets assigned a public \"Luna\" mission number only if a launch resulted in a spacecraft going beyond Earth orbit. The policy had the effect of hiding Soviet Moon mission failures from public view. \n

If the attempt failed in Earth orbit before departing for the Moon, it was frequently, but not always, given a \"Sputnik\" or \"Cosmos\" Earth-orbit mission number to hide its purpose. Launch explosions were not acknowledged at all.\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Mission\n	Mass (kg)\n	Launch vehicle\n	Launch date\n	Goal\n	Result\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	23 September 1958\n	Impact\n	Failure – booster malfunction at T+ 93 s\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	12 October 1958\n	Impact\n	Failure – booster malfunction at T+ 104 s\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	4 December 1958\n	Impact\n	Failure – booster malfunction at T+ 254 s\n
Luna-1\n	361\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	2 January 1959\n	Impact\n	Partial success – first spacecraft to reach escape velocity, lunar flyby, solar orbit; missed the Moon\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	18 June 1959\n	Impact\n	Failure – booster malfunction at T+ 153 s\n
Luna-2\n	390\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	12 September 1959\n	Impact\n	Success – first lunar impact\n
Luna-3\n	270\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	4 October 1959\n	Flyby\n	Success – first photos of lunar far side\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	15 April 1960\n	Flyby\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K72\n	16 April 1960\n	Flyby\n	Failure – booster malfunction at T+ 1 s\n
Sputnik-25\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	4 January 1963\n	Landing\n	Failure – stranded in low Earth orbit\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	3 February 1963\n	Landing\n	Failure – booster malfunction at T+ 105 s\n
Luna-4\n	1422\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	2 April 1963\n	Landing\n	Failure – lunar flyby at 8,000 kilometres (5,000 mi)\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	21 March 1964\n	Landing\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	20 April 1964\n	Landing\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n
Cosmos-60\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	12 March 1965\n	Landing\n	Failure – stranded in low Earth orbit\n
\n	\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	10 April 1965\n	Landing\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n
Luna-5\n	1475\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	9 May 1965\n	Landing\n	Failure – lunar impact\n
Luna-6\n	1440\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	8 June 1965\n	Landing\n	Failure – lunar flyby at 160,000 kilometres (99,000 mi)\n
Luna-7\n	1504\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	4 October 1965\n	Landing\n	Failure – lunar impact\n
Luna-8\n	1550\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	3 December 1965\n	Landing\n	Failure – lunar impact during landing attempt\n

Early U.S. uncrewed lunar missions (1958–1965)

The U.S. was not able to reach the Moon with the Pioneer and Ranger programs, with fifteen consecutive U.S. uncrewed lunar missions from 1958 to 1964 failing their primary photographic missions.^[25]^[26] However, Rangers 4 and 6 successfully repeated the Soviet lunar impacts as part of their secondary missions.^[27]^[28]\n

Three U.S. missions^[19]^[27]^[29] in 1962 attempted to hard land small seismometer packages released by the main Ranger spacecraft. These surface packages were to use retrorockets to survive landing, unlike the parent vehicle, which was designed to deliberately crash onto the surface. The final three Ranger probes performed successful high altitude lunar reconnaissance photography missions during intentional crash impacts between 2.62 and 2.68 kilometres per second (9,400 and 9,600 km/h).^[30]^[31]^[32]\n

Mission\n	Mass (kg)\n	Launch vehicle\n	Launch date\n	Goal\n	Result\n
Pioneer 0\n	38\n	Thor-Able\n	17 August 1958\n	Lunar orbit\n	Failure – first stage explosion; destroyed\n
Pioneer 1\n	34\n	Thor-Able\n	11 October 1958\n	Lunar orbit\n	Failure – software error; reentry\n
Pioneer 2\n	39\n	Thor-Able\n	8 November 1958\n	Lunar orbit\n	Failure – third stage misfire; reentry\n
Pioneer 3\n	6\n	Juno\n	6 December 1958\n	Flyby\n	Failure – first stage misfire, reentry\n
Pioneer 4\n	6\n	Juno\n	3 March 1959\n	Flyby\n	Partial success – first US craft to reach escape velocity, lunar flyby too far to shoot photos due to targeting error; solar orbit\n
Pioneer P-1\n	168\n	Atlas-Able\n	24 September 1959\n	Lunar orbit\n	Failure – pad explosion; destroyed\n
Pioneer P-3\n	168\n	Atlas-Able\n	29 November 1959\n	Lunar orbit\n	Failure – payload shroud; destroyed\n
Pioneer P-30\n	175\n	Atlas-Able\n	25 September 1960\n	Lunar orbit\n	Failure – second stage anomaly; reentry\n
Pioneer P-31\n	175\n	Atlas-Able\n	15 December 1960\n	Lunar orbit\n	Failure – first stage explosion; destroyed\n
Ranger 1\n	306\n	Atlas – Agena\n	23 August 1961\n	Prototype test\n	Failure – upper stage anomaly; reentry\n
Ranger 2\n	304\n	Atlas – Agena\n	18 November 1961\n	Prototype test\n	Failure – upper stage anomaly; reentry\n
Ranger 3\n	330\n	Atlas – Agena\n	26 January 1962\n	Landing\n	Failure – booster guidance; solar orbit\n
Ranger 4\n	331\n	Atlas – Agena\n	23 April 1962\n	Landing\n	Partial success – first U.S. spacecraft to reach another celestial body; crash impact – no photos returned\n
Ranger 5\n	342\n	Atlas – Agena\n	18 October 1962\n	Landing\n	Failure – spacecraft power; solar orbit\n
Ranger 6\n	367\n	Atlas – Agena\n	30 January 1964\n	Impact\n	Failure – spacecraft camera; crash impact\n
Ranger 7\n	367\n	Atlas – Agena\n	28 July 1964\n	Impact\n	Success – returned 4308 photos, crash impact\n
Ranger 8\n	367\n	Atlas – Agena\n	17 February 1965\n	Impact\n	Success – returned 7137 photos, crash impact\n
Ranger 9\n	367\n	Atlas – Agena\n	21 March 1965\n	Impact\n	Success – returned 5814 photos, crash impact\n

Pioneer missions

Three different designs of Pioneer lunar probes were flown on three different modified ICBMs. Those flown on the Thor booster modified with an Able upper stage carried an infrared image scanning television system with a resolution of 1 milliradian to study the Moon's surface, an ionization chamber to measure radiation in space, a diaphragm/microphone assembly to detect micrometeorites, a magnetometer, and temperature-variable resistors to monitor spacecraft internal thermal conditions.^[33]^[34]^[35] The first, a mission managed by the United States Air Force, exploded during launch;^[33] all subsequent Pioneer lunar flights had NASA as the lead management organization. The next two returned to Earth and burned up upon reentry into the atmosphere after achieved maximum altitudes of around 114,000 kilometres (71,000 mi)^[34] and 1,530 kilometres (950 mi)^[35] respectively, far short of the roughly 400,000 kilometres (250,000 mi) required to reach the vicinity of the Moon.\n

NASA then collaborated with the United States Army's Ballistic Missile Agency to fly two extremely small cone-shaped probes on the Juno ICBM, carrying only photocells which would be triggered by the light of the Moon and a lunar radiation environment experiment using a Geiger–Müller tube detector.^[36]^[37] The first of these reached an altitude of only around 100,000 kilometres (62,000 mi), gathering data that established the presence of the Van Allen radiation belts before reentering Earth's atmosphere.^[36] The second passed by the Moon at a distance of more than 60,000 kilometres (37,000 mi), twice as far as planned and too far away to trigger either of the on-board scientific instruments, yet still becoming the first U.S. spacecraft to reach a solar orbit.^[37]\n

The final Pioneer lunar probe design consisted of four \"paddlewheel\" solar panels extending from a one-meter diameter spherical spin-stabilized spacecraft body equipped to take images of the lunar surface with a television-like system, estimate the Moon's mass and topography of the poles, record the distribution and velocity of micrometeorites, study radiation, measure magnetic fields, detect low frequency electromagnetic waves in space and use a sophisticated integrated propulsion system for maneuvering and orbit insertion as well.^[38] None of the four spacecraft built in this series of probes survived launch on its Atlas ICBM outfitted with an Able upper stage.^[39]^[40]^[41]\n

Following the unsuccessful Atlas-Able Pioneer probes, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory embarked upon an uncrewed spacecraft development program whose modular design could be used to support both lunar and interplanetary exploration missions. The interplanetary versions were known as Mariners;^[42] lunar versions were Rangers. JPL envisioned three versions of the Ranger lunar probes: Block I prototypes, which would carry various radiation detectors in test flights to a very high Earth orbit that came nowhere near the Moon;^[43] Block II, which would try to accomplish the first Moon landing by hard landing a seismometer package;^[44] and Block III, which would crash onto the lunar surface without any braking rockets while taking very high resolution wide-area photographs of the Moon during their descent.^[45]\n

Ranger missions

Soviet uncrewed soft landings (1966–1976)

The Luna 9 spacecraft, launched by the Soviet Union, performed the first successful soft Moon landing on 3 February 1966. Airbags protected its 99-kilogram (218 lb) ejectable capsule which survived an impact speed of over 15 metres per second (54 km/h; 34 mph).^[53] Luna 13 duplicated this feat with a similar Moon landing on 24 December 1966. Both returned panoramic photographs that were the first views from the lunar surface.^[54]\n

Luna 16 was the first robotic probe to land on the Moon and safely return a sample of lunar soil back to Earth.^[55] It represented the first lunar sample return mission by the Soviet Union, and was the third lunar sample return mission overall, following the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions. This mission was later successfully repeated by Luna 20 (1972) and Luna 24 (1976).\n

In 1970 and 1973, two Lunokhod (\"Moonwalker\") robotic lunar rovers were delivered to the Moon, where they successfully operated for 10 and 4 months respectively, covering 10.5 km (6.5 mi) (Lunokhod 1) and 37 km (23 mi) (Lunokhod 2). These rover missions were in operation concurrently with the Zond and Luna series of Moon flyby, orbiter and landing missions.\n

Mission\n	Mass (kg)\n	Booster\n	Launch date\n	Goal\n	Result\n	Landing zone\n	Lat/Lon\n
Luna-9\n	1,580\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	31 January 1966\n	Landing\n	Success – first lunar soft landing, numerous photos\n	Oceanus Procellarum\n	7.13°N 64.37°W\n
Luna-13\n	1,580\n	Semyorka – 8K78\n	21 December 1966\n	Landing\n	Success – second lunar soft landing, numerous photos\n	Oceanus Procellarum\n	18°52'N 62°3'W\n
\n	\n	Proton\n	19 February 1969\n	Lunar rover\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n	\n	\n
\n	\n	Proton\n	14 June 1969\n	Sample return\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n	\n	\n
Luna-15\n	5,700\n	Proton\n	13 July 1969\n	Sample return\n	Failure – lunar crash impact\n	Mare Crisium\n	unknown\n
Cosmos-300\n	\n	Proton\n	23 September 1969\n	Sample return\n	Failure – stranded in low Earth orbit\n	\n	\n
Cosmos-305\n	\n	Proton\n	22 October 1969\n	Sample return\n	Failure – stranded in low Earth orbit\n	\n	\n
\n	\n	Proton\n	6 February 1970\n	Sample return\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n	\n	\n
Luna-16\n	5,600\n	Proton\n	12 September 1970\n	Sample return\n	Success – returned 0.10 kg (0.22 lb) of Moon soil back to Earth\n	Mare Fecunditatis\n	000.68S 056.30E\n
Luna-17\n	5,700\n	Proton\n	10 November 1970\n	Lunar rover\n	Success – Lunokhod-1 rover traveled 10.5 km (6.5 mi) across lunar surface\n	Mare Imbrium\n	038.28N 325.00E\n
Luna-18\n	5,750\n	Proton\n	2 September 1971\n	Sample return\n	Failure – lunar crash impact\n	Mare Fecunditatis\n	003.57N 056.50E\n
Luna-20\n	5,727\n	Proton\n	14 February 1972\n	Sample return\n	Success – returned 0.05 kg (0.11 lb) of Moon soil back to Earth\n	Mare Fecunditatis\n	003.57N 056.50E\n
Luna-21\n	5,950\n	Proton\n	8 January 1973\n	Lunar rover\n	Success – Lunokhod-2 rover traveled 37.0 km (23.0 mi) across lunar surface\n	LeMonnier Crater\n	025.85N 030.45E\n
Luna-23\n	5,800\n	Proton\n	28 October 1974\n	Sample return\n	Failure – Moon landing achieved, but malfunction prevented sample return\n	Mare Crisium\n	012.00N 062.00E\n
\n	\n	Proton\n	16 October 1975\n	Sample return\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n	\n	\n
Luna-24\n	5,800\n	Proton\n	9 August 1976\n	Sample return\n	Success – returned 0.17 kg (0.37 lb) of Moon soil back to Earth\n	Mare Crisium\n	012.25N 062.20E\n

U.S. uncrewed soft landings (1966–1968)

The U.S. robotic Surveyor program was part of an effort to locate a safe site on the Moon for a human landing and test under lunar conditions the radar and landing systems required to make a true controlled touchdown. Five of Surveyor's seven missions made successful uncrewed Moon landings. Surveyor 3 was visited two years after its Moon landing by the crew of Apollo 12. They removed parts of it for examination back on Earth to determine the effects of long-term exposure to the lunar environment.\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Mission\n	Mass (kg)\n	Booster\n	Launch date\n	Goal\n	Result\n	Landing zone\n	Lat/Lon\n
Surveyor 1\n	292\n	Atlas – Centaur\n	30 May 1966\n	Landing\n	Success – 11,000 pictures returned, first U.S. Moon landing\n	Oceanus Procellarum\n	002.45S 043.22W\n
Surveyor 2\n	292\n	Atlas – Centaur\n	20 September 1966\n	Landing\n	Failure – midcourse engine malfunction, placing vehicle in unrecoverable tumble; crashed southeast of Copernicus Crater\n	Sinus Medii\n	004.00S 011.00W\n
Surveyor 3\n	302\n	Atlas – Centaur\n	20 April 1967\n	Landing\n	Success – 6,000 pictures returned; trench dug to 17.5 cm depth after 18 hr of robot arm use\n	Oceanus Procellarum\n	002.94S 336.66E\n
Surveyor 4\n	282\n	Atlas – Centaur\n	14 July 1967\n	Landing\n	Failure – radio contact lost 2.5 minutes before touchdown; perfect automated Moon landing possible but outcome unknown\n	Sinus Medii\n	unknown\n
Surveyor 5\n	303\n	Atlas – Centaur\n	8 September 1967\n	Landing\n	Success – 19,000 photos returned, first use of alpha scatter soil composition monitor\n	Mare Tranquillitatis\n	001.41N 023.18E\n
Surveyor 6\n	300\n	Atlas – Centaur\n	7 November 1967\n	Landing\n	Success – 30,000 photos returned, robot arm and alpha scatter science, engine restart, second landing 2.5 m away from first\n	Sinus Medii\n	000.46N 358.63E\n
Surveyor 7\n	306\n	Atlas – Centaur\n	7 January 1968\n	Landing\n	Success – 21,000 photos returned; robot arm and alpha scatter science; laser beams from Earth detected\n	Tycho Crater\n	041.01S 348.59E\n

Transition from direct ascent landings to lunar orbit operations

Lunar ascent by Apollo 17 ascent stage.

Within four months of each other in early 1966 the Soviet Union and the United States had accomplished successful Moon landings with uncrewed spacecraft. To the general public both countries had demonstrated roughly equal technical capabilities by returning photographic images from the surface of the Moon. These pictures provided a key affirmative answer to the crucial question of whether or not lunar soil would support upcoming crewed landers with their much greater weight.\n

However, the Luna 9 hard landing of a ruggedized sphere using airbags at a 50-kilometre-per-hour (31 mph) ballistic impact speed had much more in common with the failed 1962 Ranger landing attempts and their planned 160-kilometre-per-hour (99 mph) impacts than with the Surveyor 1 soft landing on three footpads using its radar-controlled, adjustable-thrust retrorocket. While Luna 9 and Surveyor 1 were both major national accomplishments, only Surveyor 1 had reached its landing site employing key technologies that would be needed for a crewed flight. Thus as of mid-1966, the United States had begun to pull ahead of the Soviet Union in the so-called Space Race to land a man on the Moon.\n

Advances in other areas were necessary before crewed spacecraft could follow uncrewed ones to the surface of the Moon. Of particular importance was developing the expertise to perform flight operations in lunar orbit. Ranger, Surveyor and initial Luna Moon landing attempts all flew directly to the surface without a lunar orbit. Such direct ascents use a minimum amount of fuel for uncrewed spacecraft on a one-way trip.\n

In contrast, crewed vehicles need additional fuel after a lunar landing to enable a return trip back to Earth for the crew. Leaving this massive amount of required Earth-return fuel in lunar orbit until it is used later in the mission is far more efficient than taking such fuel down to the lunar surface in a Moon landing and then hauling it all back into space yet again, working against lunar gravity both ways. Such considerations lead logically to a lunar orbit rendezvous mission profile for a crewed Moon landing.\n

Accordingly, beginning in mid-1966 both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. naturally progressed into missions featuring lunar orbit as a prerequisite to a crewed Moon landing. The primary goals of these initial uncrewed orbiters were extensive photographic mapping of the entire lunar surface for the selection of crewed landing sites and, for the Soviets, the checkout of radio communications gear that would be used in future soft landings.\n

An unexpected major discovery from initial lunar orbiters were vast volumes of dense materials beneath the surface of the Moon's maria. Such mass concentrations (\"mascons\") can send a crewed mission dangerously off course in the final minutes of a Moon landing when aiming for a relatively small landing zone that is smooth and safe. Mascons were also found over a longer period of time to greatly disturb the orbits of low-altitude satellites around the Moon, making their orbits unstable and forcing an inevitable crash on the lunar surface in the relatively short period of months to a few years.\n

Controlling the location of impact for spent lunar orbiters can have scientific value. For example, in 1999 the NASA Lunar Prospector orbiter was deliberately targeted to impact a permanently shadowed area of Shoemaker Crater near the lunar south pole. It was hoped that energy from the impact would vaporize suspected shadowed ice deposits in the crater and liberate a water vapor plume detectable from Earth. No such plume was observed. However, a small vial of ashes from the body of pioneer lunar scientist Eugene Shoemaker was delivered by the Lunar Prospector to the crater named in his honor – the only human remains on the Moon.\n

Soviet lunar orbit satellites (1966–1974)

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

U.S.S.R. mission\n	Mass (kg)\n	Booster\n	Launched\n	Mission goal\n	Mission result\n
Cosmos – 111\n	\n	Molniya-M\n	1 March 1966\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Failure – stranded in low Earth orbit\n
Luna-10\n	1,582\n	Molniya-M\n	31 March 1966\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 2,738-by-2,088-kilometre (1,701 mi × 1,297 mi) × 72 deg orbit, 178 minute period, 60-day science mission\n
Luna-11\n	1,640\n	Molniya-M\n	24 August 1966\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 2,931-by-1,898-kilometre (1,821 mi × 1,179 mi) × 27 deg orbit, 178 minute period, 38-day science mission\n
Luna-12\n	1,620\n	Molniya-M\n	22 October 1966\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 2,938-by-1,871-kilometre (1,826 mi × 1,163 mi) × 10 deg orbit, 205 minute period, 89-day science mission\n
Cosmos-159\n	1,700\n	Molniya-M\n	17 May 1967\n	Prototype test\n	Success – high Earth orbit crewed landing communications gear radio calibration test\n
\n	\n	Molniya-M\n	7 February 1968\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit – attempted radio calibration test?\n
Luna-14\n	1,700\n	Molniya-M\n	7 April 1968\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 870-by-160-kilometre (541 mi × 99 mi) × 42 deg orbit, 160 minute period, unstable orbit, radio calibration test?\n
Luna-19\n	5,700\n	Proton\n	28 September 1971\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 140-by-140-kilometre (87 mi × 87 mi) × 41 deg orbit, 121 minute period, 388-day science mission\n
Luna-22\n	5,700\n	Proton\n	29 May 1974\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 222-by-219-kilometre (138 mi × 136 mi) × 19 deg orbit, 130 minute period, 521-day science mission\n

Luna 10 became the first spacecraft to orbit the Moon on 3 April 1966.\n

U.S. lunar orbit satellites (1966–1967)

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

U.S. mission\n	Mass (kg)\n	Booster\n	Launched\n	Mission goal\n	Mission result\n
Lunar Orbiter 1\n	386\n	Atlas – Agena\n	10 August 1966\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 1,160-by-189-kilometer (721 mi × 117 mi) × 12 deg orbit, 208 minute period, 80-day photography mission\n
Lunar Orbiter 2\n	386\n	Atlas – Agena\n	6 November 1966\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 1,860-by-52-kilometer (1,156 mi × 32 mi) × 12 deg orbit, 208 minute period, 339-day photography mission\n
Lunar Orbiter 3\n	386\n	Atlas – Agena\n	5 February 1967\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 1,860-by-52-kilometer (1,156 mi × 32 mi) × 21 deg orbit, 208 minute period, 246-day photography mission\n
Lunar Orbiter 4\n	386\n	Atlas – Agena\n	4 May 1967\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 6,111-by-2,706-kilometer (3,797 mi × 1,681 mi) × 86 deg orbit, 172 minute period, 180-day photography mission\n
Lunar Orbiter 5\n	386\n	Atlas – Agena\n	1 August 1967\n	Lunar orbiter\n	Success – 6,023-by-195-kilometer (3,743 mi × 121 mi) × 85 deg orbit, 510 minute period, 183-day photography mission\n

Soviet circumlunar loop flights (1967–1970)

Main article: Soviet crewed lunar programs

It is possible to aim a spacecraft from Earth so it will loop around the Moon and return to Earth without entering lunar orbit, following the so-called free return trajectory. Such circumlunar loop missions are simpler than lunar orbit missions because rockets for lunar orbit braking and Earth return are not required. However, a crewed circumlunar loop trip poses significant challenges beyond those found in a crewed low-Earth-orbit mission, offering valuable lessons in preparation for a crewed Moon landing. Foremost among these are mastering the demands of re-entering the Earth's atmosphere upon returning from the Moon.\n

Inhabited Earth-orbiting vehicles such as the Space Shuttle return to Earth from speeds of around 7,500 m/s (27,000 km/h). Due to the effects of gravity, a vehicle returning from the Moon hits Earth's atmosphere at a much higher speed of around 11,000 m/s (40,000 km/h). The g-loading on astronauts during the resulting deceleration can be at the limits of human endurance even during a nominal reentry. Slight variations in the vehicle flight path and reentry angle during a return from the Moon can easily result in fatal levels of deceleration force.\n

Achieving a crewed circumlunar loop flight prior to a crewed lunar landing became a primary goal of the Soviets with their Zond spacecraft program. The first three Zonds were robotic planetary probes; after that, the Zond name was transferred to a completely separate human spaceflight program. The initial focus of these later Zonds was extensive testing of required high-speed reentry techniques. This focus was not shared by the U.S., who chose instead to bypass the stepping stone of a crewed circumlunar loop mission and never developed a separate spacecraft for this purpose.\n

Initial crewed spaceflights in the early 1960s placed a single person in low Earth orbit during the Soviet Vostok and U.S. Mercury programs. A two-flight extension of the Vostok program known as Voskhod effectively used Vostok capsules with their ejection seats removed to achieve Soviet space firsts of multiple person crews in 1964 and spacewalks in early 1965. These capabilities were later demonstrated by the U.S. in ten Gemini low Earth orbit missions throughout 1965 and 1966, using a totally new second-generation spacecraft design that had little in common with the earlier Mercury. These Gemini missions went on to prove techniques for orbital rendezvous and docking crucial to a crewed lunar landing mission profile.\n

After the end of the Gemini program, the Soviet Union began flying their second-generation Zond crewed spacecraft in 1967 with the ultimate goal of looping a cosmonaut around the Moon and returning him or her immediately to Earth. The Zond spacecraft was launched with the simpler and already operational Proton launch rocket, unlike the parallel Soviet human Moon landing effort also underway at the time based on third-generation Soyuz spacecraft requiring development of the advanced N-1 booster. The Soviets thus believed they could achieve a crewed Zond circumlunar flight years before a U.S. human lunar landing and so score a propaganda victory. However, significant development problems delayed the Zond program and the success of the U.S. Apollo lunar landing program led to the eventual termination of the Zond effort.\n

Like Zond, Apollo flights were generally launched on a free return trajectory that would return them to Earth via a circumlunar loop if a service module malfunction failed to place them in lunar orbit. This free return option was utilized after an explosion aboard the Apollo 13 mission in 1970, and was the nominal path for the Artemis II mission in 2026 as its spacecraft lacked the capability to enter lunar orbit.\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

U.S.S.R mission\n	Mass (kg)\n	Booster\n	Launched\n	Mission goal\n	Payload\n	Mission result\n
Cosmos-146\n	5,400\n	Proton\n	10 March 1967\n	High Earth Orbit\n	uncrewed\n	Partial success – Successfully reached high Earth orbit, but became stranded and was unable to initiate controlled high speed atmospheric reentry test\n
Cosmos-154\n	5,400\n	Proton\n	8 April 1967\n	High Earth Orbit\n	uncrewed\n	Partial success – Successfully reached high Earth orbit, but became stranded and was unable to initiate controlled high speed atmospheric reentry test\n
\n	\n	Proton\n	28 September 1967\n	High Earth Orbit\n	uncrewed\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n
\n	\n	Proton\n	22 November 1967\n	High Earth Orbit\n	uncrewed\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n
Zond-4\n	5,140\n	Proton\n	2 March 1968\n	High Earth Orbit\n	uncrewed\n	Partial success – launched successfully to 300,000 km (190,000 mi) high Earth orbit, high speed reentry test guidance malfunction, intentional self-destruct to prevent landfall outside Soviet Union\n
\n	\n	Proton\n	23 April 1968\n	Circumlunar Loop\n	non-human biological payload\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit; launch preparation tank explosion kills three in pad crew\n
Zond-5\n	5,375\n	Proton\n	15 September 1968\n	Circumlunar Loop\n	non-human biological payload\n	Success – looped around Moon with Earth's first near-lunar life forms, two tortoises and other live biological specimens, and the capsule and payload safely to Earth despite landing off-target outside the Soviet Union in the Indian Ocean\n
Zond-6\n	5,375\n	Proton\n	10 November 1968\n	Circumlunar Loop\n	non-human biological payload\n	Partial success – looped around Moon, successful reentry, but loss of cabin air pressure caused biological payload death, parachute system malfunction and severe vehicle damage upon landing\n
\n	\n	Proton\n	20 January 1969\n	Circumlunar Loop\n	non-human biological payload\n	Failure – booster malfunction, failed to reach Earth orbit\n
Zond-7\n	5,979\n	Proton\n	8 August 1969\n	Circumlunar Loop\n	non-human biological payload\n	Success – looped around Moon, returned biological payload safely to Earth and landed on-target inside Soviet Union. Only Zond mission whose reentry G-forces would have been survivable by human crew had they been aboard.\n
Zond-8\n	5,375\n	Proton\n	20 October 1970\n	Circumlunar Loop\n	non-human biological payload\n	Success – looped around Moon, returned biological payload safely to Earth despite landing off-target outside Soviet Union in the Indian Ocean\n

Zond 5 was the first spacecraft to carry life from Earth to the vicinity of the Moon and return, initiating the final lap of the Space Race with its payload of tortoises, insects, plants, and bacteria. Despite the failure suffered in its final moments, the Zond 6 mission was reported by Soviet media as being a success as well. Although hailed worldwide as remarkable achievements, both these Zond missions flew off-nominal reentry trajectories resulting in deceleration forces that would have been fatal to humans.\n

As a result, the Soviets secretly planned to continue uncrewed Zond tests until their reliability to support human flight had been demonstrated. However, due to NASA's continuing problems with the lunar module, and because of CIA reports of a potential Soviet crewed circumlunar flight in late 1968, NASA fatefully changed the flight plan of Apollo 8 from an Earth-orbit lunar module test to a lunar orbit mission scheduled for late December 1968.\n

In early December 1968 the launch window to the Moon opened for the Soviet launch site in Baikonur, giving the USSR their final chance to beat the US to the Moon. Cosmonauts went on alert and asked to fly the Zond spacecraft then in final countdown at Baikonur on the first human trip to the Moon. Ultimately, however, the Soviet Politburo decided the risk of crew death was unacceptable given the combined poor performance to that point of Zond/Proton and so scrubbed the launch of a crewed Soviet lunar mission. Their decision proved to be a wise one, since this unnumbered Zond mission was destroyed in another uncrewed test when it was finally launched several weeks later.\n

By this time flights of the third generation U.S. Apollo spacecraft had begun. Far more capable than the Zond, the Apollo spacecraft had the necessary rocket power to slip into and out of lunar orbit and to make course adjustments required for a safe reentry during the return to Earth. The Apollo 8 mission carried out the first human trip to the Moon on 24 December 1968, certifying the Saturn V booster for crewed use and flying not a circumlunar loop but instead a full ten orbits around the Moon before returning safely to Earth. Apollo 10 then performed a full dress rehearsal of a crewed Moon landing in May 1969. This mission orbited within 14.4 kilometres (47,400 ft) of the lunar surface, performing necessary low-altitude mapping of trajectory-altering mascons using a factory prototype lunar module too heavy to land. With the failure of the robotic Soviet sample return Moon landing attempt Luna 15 in July 1969, the stage was set for Apollo 11.\n

Human Moon landings (1969–1972)

US strategy

Main article: Apollo program § Political pressure builds

Plans for human Moon exploration began during the Eisenhower administration. In a series of mid-1950s articles in Collier's magazine, Wernher von Braun had popularized the idea of a crewed expedition to establish a lunar base. A human Moon landing posed several daunting technical challenges to the US and USSR. Besides guidance and weight management, atmospheric re-entry without ablative overheating was a major hurdle. After the Soviets launched Sputnik, von Braun promoted a plan for the US Army to establish a military lunar outpost by 1965.\n

After the early Soviet successes, especially Yuri Gagarin's flight, US President John F. Kennedy looked for a project that would capture the public imagination. He asked Vice President Lyndon Johnson to make recommendations on a scientific endeavor that would prove US world leadership. The proposals included non-space options such as massive irrigation projects to benefit the Third World. The Soviets, at the time, had more powerful rockets than the US, which gave them an advantage in some kinds of space mission.\n

Advances in US nuclear weapon technology had led to smaller, lighter warheads; the Soviets' were much heavier, and the powerful R-7 rocket was developed to carry them. More modest missions such as flying around the Moon, or a space lab in lunar orbit (both were proposed by Kennedy to von Braun), offered too much advantage to the Soviets; landing, however, would capture the world's imagination.\n

Johnson had championed the US human spaceflight program ever since Sputnik, sponsoring legislation to create NASA while he was still a senator. When Kennedy asked him in 1961 to research the best achievement to counter the Soviets' lead, Johnson responded that the US had an even chance of beating them to a crewed lunar landing, but not for anything less. Kennedy seized on Apollo as the ideal focus for efforts in space. He ensured continuing funding, shielding space spending from the 1963 tax cut, but diverting money from other NASA scientific projects. These diversions dismayed NASA's leader, James E. Webb, who perceived the need for NASA's support from the scientific community.\n

The Moon landing required development of the large Saturn V launch vehicle, which achieved a perfect record: zero catastrophic failures or launch vehicle-caused mission failures in thirteen launches.\n

For the program to succeed, its proponents would have to defeat criticism from politicians both on the left (more money for social programs) and on the right (more money for the military). By emphasizing the scientific payoff and playing on fears of Soviet space dominance, Kennedy and Johnson managed to swing public opinion: by 1965, 58 percent of Americans favored Apollo, up from 33 percent two years earlier. After Johnson became president in 1963, his continuing defense of the program allowed it to succeed in 1969, as Kennedy had planned.\n

Soviet strategy

Main article: Soviet Moonshot

Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said in October 1963 the USSR was \"not at present planning flight by cosmonauts to the Moon,\" while insisting that the Soviets had not dropped out of the race. Only after another year did the USSR fully commit itself to a Moon-landing attempt, which ultimately failed.\n

At the same time, Kennedy had suggested various joint programs, including a possible Moon landing by Soviet and U.S. astronauts and the development of better weather-monitoring satellites, eventually resulting in the Apollo-Soyuz mission. Khrushchev, sensing an attempt by Kennedy to steal Russian space technology, rejected the idea at first: if the USSR went to the Moon, it would go alone. Though Khrushchev was eventually warming up to the idea, the realization of a joint Moon landing was choked by Kennedy's assassination.^[56]\n

Sergey Korolev, the Soviet space program's chief designer, had started promoting his Soyuz craft and the N1 launcher rocket that would have the capability of carrying out a human Moon landing. Khrushchev directed Korolev's design bureau to arrange further space firsts by modifying the existing Vostok technology, while a second team started building a completely new launcher and craft, the Proton booster and the Zond, for a human cislunar flight in 1966. In 1964 the new Soviet leadership gave Korolev the backing for a Moon landing effort and brought all crewed projects under his direction.\n

With Korolev's death and the failure of the first Soyuz flight in 1967, coordination of the Soviet Moon landing program quickly unraveled. The Soviets built a landing craft and selected cosmonauts for a mission that would have placed Alexei Leonov on the Moon's surface, but with the successive launch failures of the N1 booster in 1969, plans for a crewed landing suffered first delay and then cancellation.\n

A program of automated return vehicles was begun, in the hope of being the first to return lunar rocks. This had several failures. It eventually succeeded with Luna 16 in 1970.^[57] But this had little impact, because the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 lunar landings and rock returns had already taken place by then.\n

Apollo missions

Twenty-four U.S. astronauts traveled to the Moon's vicinity under the Apollo program. Three made the trip twice, and twelve walked on its surface. Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 remained in lunar orbit. Apollo 10 included undocking and Descent Orbit Insertion (DOI), followed by LM staging to CSM redocking. Apollo 13, originally scheduled as a landing, ended up as a lunar flyby by means of free return trajectory. Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 remained in Earth orbit. Apart from the inherent dangers of crewed Moon expeditions as seen with Apollo 13, one reason for their cessation according to astronaut Alan Bean is the cost it imposes in government subsidies.^[58]\n

Human Moon landings

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Mission name\n	Lunar lander\n	Lunar landing date\n	Lunar liftoff date\n	Lunar landing site\n	Duration on lunar surface (DD:HH:MM)\n	Crew\n	Number of EVAs\n	Total EVA Time (HH:MM)\n
Apollo 11\n	Eagle\n	20 July 1969\n	21 July 1969\n	Sea of Tranquility\n	0:21:31\n	Neil Armstrong, Edwin \"Buzz\" Aldrin\n	1\n	2:31\n
Apollo 12\n	Intrepid\n	19 November 1969\n	21 November 1969\n	Ocean of Storms\n	1:07:31\n	Charles \"Pete\" Conrad, Alan Bean\n	2\n	7:45\n
Apollo 14\n	Antares\n	5 February 1971\n	6 February 1971\n	Fra Mauro\n	1:09:30\n	Alan B. Shepard, Edgar Mitchell\n	2\n	9:21\n
Apollo 15\n	Falcon\n	30 July 1971\n	2 August 1971\n	Hadley Rille\n	2:18:55\n	David Scott, James Irwin\n	3\n	18:33\n
Apollo 16\n	Orion\n	21 April 1972\n	24 April 1972\n	Descartes Highlands\n	2:23:02\n	John Young, Charles Duke\n	3\n	20:14\n
Apollo 17\n	Challenger\n	11 December 1972\n	14 December 1972\n	Taurus–Littrow\n	3:02:59\n	Eugene Cernan, Harrison \"Jack\" Schmitt\n	3\n	22:04\n

Other aspects of the successful Apollo landings

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land the first Apollo Lunar Module on the Moon, 20 July 1969, creating Tranquility Base. Apollo 11 was the first of six Apollo program lunar landings.

President Richard Nixon had speechwriter William Safire prepare a condolence speech for delivery in case Armstrong and Aldrin became marooned on the Moon's surface and could not be rescued.^[59]\n

In 1951, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke forecast that a man would reach the Moon by 1978.^[60]\n

On 16 August 2006, the Associated Press reported that NASA is missing the original Slow-scan television tapes (which were made before the scan conversion for conventional TV) of the Apollo 11 Moon walk. Some news outlets have mistakenly reported the SSTV tapes found in Western Australia, but those tapes were only recordings of data from the Apollo 11 Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package.^[61] The tapes were found in 2008 and sold at auction in 2019 for the 50th anniversary of the landing.^[62]\n

Scientists believe the six American flags planted by astronauts have been bleached white because of more than 40 years of exposure to solar radiation.^[63] Using LROC images, it has been determined that five of the six American flags are still standing and casting shadows at all of the sites, except Apollo 11.^[64] Astronaut Buzz Aldrin reported that the flag was blown over by the exhaust from the ascent engine during liftoff of Apollo 11.^[64]\n

Late 20th century–21st century uncrewed crash landings

Hiten (Japan)

Launched on 24 January 1990, 11:46 UTC. At the end of its mission, the Japanese lunar orbiter Hiten was commanded to crash into the lunar surface and did so on 10 April 1993 at 18:03:25.7 UT (11 April 03:03:25.7 JST).^[65]\n

Lunar Prospector (U.S.)

Lunar Prospector was launched on 7 January 1998. The mission ended on 31 July 1999, when the orbiter was deliberately crashed into a crater near the lunar south pole after the presence of water ice was successfully detected.^[66]\n

SMART-1 (ESA)

Launched 27 September 2003, 23:14 UTC from the Guiana Space Centre in Kourou, French Guiana. At the end of its mission, the ESA lunar orbiter SMART-1 performed a controlled crash into the Moon, at about 2 km/s (7,200 km/h; 4,500 mph). The time of the crash was 3 September 2006, at 5:42 UTC.^[67]\n

Chandrayaan-1 (India)

The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) performed a controlled hard landing with its Moon Impact Probe (MIP). The MIP was ejected from the Chandrayaan-1 lunar orbiter and performed remote sensing experiments during its descent to the lunar surface. It impacted near Shackleton crater at the south pole of the lunar surface at 14 November 2008, 20:31 IST.\n

Chandrayaan-1 was launched on 22 October 2008, 00:52 UTC.^[68]\n

Chang'e 1 (China)

The Chinese lunar orbiter Chang'e 1, executed a controlled crash onto the surface of the Moon on 1 March 2009, 20:44 GMT, after a 16-month mission. Chang'e 1 was launched on 24 October 2007, 10:05 UTC.^[69]\n

SELENE (Japan)

SELENE or Kaguya after successfully orbiting the Moon for a year and eight months, the main orbiter was instructed to impact on the lunar surface near the crater Gill at 18:25 UTC on 10 June 2009.^[70] SELENE or Kaguya was launched on 14 September 2007.\n

LCROSS (U.S.)

The LCROSS data collecting shepherding spacecraft was launched together with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) on 18 June 2009 on board an Atlas V rocket with a Centaur upper stage. On 9 October 2009, at 11:31 UTC, the Centaur upper stage impacted the lunar surface, releasing the kinetic energy equivalent of detonating approximately 2 tons of TNT (8.86 GJ).^[71] Six minutes later at 11:37 UTC, the LCROSS shepherding spacecraft also impacted the surface.^[72]\n

GRAIL (U.S.)

The GRAIL mission consisted of two small spacecraft: GRAIL A (Ebb), and GRAIL B (Flow). They were launched on 10 September 2011 on board a Delta II rocket. GRAIL A separated from the rocket about nine minutes after launch, and GRAIL B followed about eight minutes later.^[73]^[74] The first probe entered orbit on 31 December 2011 and the second followed on 1 January 2012.^[75] The two spacecraft impacted the Lunar surface on 17 December 2012.^[76]\n

LADEE (U.S.)

LADEE was launched on 7 September 2013.^[77] The mission ended on 18 April 2014, when the spacecraft's controllers intentionally crashed LADEE into the far side of the Moon,^[78]^[79] which, later, was determined to be near the eastern rim of Sundman V crater.^[80]^[81]\n

Manfred Memorial Moon Mission (Luxembourg)

The Manfred Memorial Moon Mission was launched on 23 October 2014. It conducted a lunar flyby and operated for 19 days which was four times longer than expected. The Manfred Memorial Moon Mission remained attached to the upper stage of its launch vehicle (CZ-3C/E). The spacecraft along with its upper stage impacted the Moon on 4 March 2022.^[82]^[83]^[84]\n

21st century uncrewed soft landings and attempts

Chang'e 3 (China)

On 14 December 2013 at 13:12 UTC,^[85] Chang'e 3 soft-landed a rover on the Moon. This was China's first soft landing on another celestial body and world's first lunar soft landing since Luna 24 on 22 August 1976.^[86] The mission was launched on 1 December 2013. After successful landing, the lander release the Yutu rover, which moved 114 meters before being immobilized due to system malfunction. But the rover was still operational until July 2016.^[87]\n

Chang'e 4 (China)

On 3 January 2019 at 2:26 UTC, Chang'e 4 became the first spacecraft to land on the far side of the Moon.^[88] Chang'e 4 was originally designed as the backup of Chang'e 3. It was later adjusted as a mission to the far side of the Moon after the success of Chang'e 3.^[89] After making a successful landing within Von Kármán crater, the Chang'e 4 lander deployed the 140-kilogram (310 lb) Yutu-2 rover and began human's first close exploration of the far side of the Moon. Because the Moon blocks the communications between far side and Earth, a relay satellite, Queqiao, was launched to the Earth–Moon L2 Lagrangian point a few months prior to the landing to enable communications.\n

Yutu-2, the second lunar rover from China, was equipped with panoramic camera, lunar penetrating radar, visible and near-infrared Imaging spectrometer and advanced small analyzer for neutrals. As of July 2022, it has survived more than 1000 days on the lunar surface and is still driving with cumulative travel distance of over 1200 meters.^[90]^[91]\n

Beresheet (Israel/SpaceIL)

On 22 February 2019, Israeli private space agency SpaceIL launched their spacecraft Beresheet on a Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral, Florida with the intention of achieving a soft landing. SpaceIL lost contact with the spacecraft during final descent on 11 April 2019, and it crashed as a result of a main engine failure.\n

The mission was the first Israeli, and the first privately funded, lunar landing attempt.^[92] Despite the failure, the mission represented the closest a private entity had come to a soft lunar landing at the time.^[93]\n

SpaceIL was originally conceived in 2011 as a venture to pursue the Google Lunar X Prize. The Beresheet lunar lander's target landing destination was within Mare Serenitatis, a vast volcanic basin on the Moon's northern near side.\n

Chandrayaan-2 (India)

ISRO, the Indian National Space agency, launched Chandrayaan-2 on 22 July 2019.^[94]^[95] It had three major modules: orbiter, lander and rover. Each of these modules had scientific instruments from scientific research institutes in India and the US.^[96] On 7 September 2019 contact was lost with the Vikram lander at an altitude of 2.1 km (1.3 mi) after a rough braking phase.^[97] Vikram was later confirmed to have crashed and been destroyed.\n

Hakuto-R Mission 1 (Japan)

Hakuto-R Mission 1 was a commercial lander developed by ispace_Inc.. It was launched on 11 December 2022 aboard a Falcon 9 rocket on a low-energy transfer trajectory that entered Lunar orbit 21 March 2023. An attempted landing on 25 April 2023 failed due to software misinterpretation of laser altimeter data.^[98]\n

Chang'e 5 (China)

On 6 December 2020 at 21:42 UTC, Chang'e 5 landed and collected the first lunar soil samples in over 40 years, and then returned the samples to Earth. The 8.2t stack consisting of lander, ascender, orbiter and returner was launched to lunar orbit by a Long March 5 rocket on 24 November. The lander-ascender combination was separated with the orbiter and returner before landing near Mons Rümker in Oceanus Procellarum. The ascender was later launched back to lunar orbit, carrying samples collected by the lander, and completed the first-ever robotic rendezvous and docking in lunar orbit.^[99]^[100] The sample container was then transferred to the returner, which successfully landed on Inner Mongolia on 16 December 2020, completing China's first extraterrestrial sample return mission.^[101]\n

Luna 25 (Russia)

In Russia's first attempt to reach the Moon since 1976, and since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Luna 25 spacecraft failed during \"pre-landing\" maneuvers, and crashed into the lunar surface on 19 August 2023.^[102]\n

Chandrayaan-3 (India)

India's national space agency ISRO launched Chandrayaan-3 on 14 July 2023. Chandrayaan-3 consists of an Indigenous Lander Module (LM), Propulsion module (PM) and the Pragyan rover. The lander with the rover successfully landed near the lunar south pole at 18:04 IST on 23 August 2023.^[103]^[104]\n

Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (Japan)

JAXA launched the Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM) mission on 6 September 2023 at 23:42 UTC (7 September 08:42 Japan Standard Time). It landed on 19 January 2024 at 15:20 UTC, making Japan the fifth country to soft-land on the Moon.^[105] Solar panel orientation issues and possible landing damage complicated the spacecraft's operation.^[106]^[107]^[108] The mission also deployed two rovers which operated successfully and independently communicated with Earth.^[107]\n

IM-1 Odysseus (USA)

On 22 February 2024, Intuitive Machine's Odysseus successfully landed on the Moon after taking off on a SpaceX Falcon 9 liftoff on 15 February 2024 in a mission between NASA, SpaceX, and Intuitive Machines, marking the United States' first soft unmanned Moon landing in over 50 years. This mission also marks the first privately owned spacecraft to land on the Moon and the first landing with cryogenic propellants.^[11]^[109] Though it landed successfully, one of the lander's legs broke upon landing and it tilted up on the other side, 18°, due to landing on a slope, but the lander survived and payloads are functioning as expected.^[110] EagleCam was not ejected prior to landing. It was later ejected on 28 February but was partially a failure as it returned all types of data except post-IM-1 landing images that were the main aim of its mission.^[111]\n

Chang'e 6 (China)

China sent Chang'e 6 on 3 May 2024, which conducted the first lunar sample return from Apollo Basin on the far side of the Moon.^[112] This is China's second lunar sample return mission, the first was achieved by Chang'e 5 from the lunar near side four years earlier.^[113] It carried a Chinese rover called Jinchan to conduct infrared spectroscopy of lunar surface and imaged Chang'e 6 lander on lunar surface.^[114] \n

The lander-ascender-rover combination was separated with the orbiter and returner before landing on 1 June 2024 at 22:23 UTC. It landed on the Moon's surface on 1 June 2024.^[115]^[116] The ascender was launched back to lunar orbit on 3 June 2024 at 23:38 UTC, carrying samples collected by the lander, and later completed another robotic rendezvous and docking in lunar orbit. The sample container was then transferred to the returner, which landed on Inner Mongolia on 25 June 2024, completing China's far side extraterrestrial sample return mission.\n

Blue Ghost M1 (USA)

Firefly Aerospace's lunar lander, carrying NASA-sponsored experiments and commercial payloads as a part of Commercial Lunar Payload Services program to Mare Crisium, was launched on 15 January 2025 on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle with Hakuto-R Mission 2.^[117] It successfully landed on 2 March 2025.^[118]\n

Hakuto-R Mission 2 (Japan)

The second mission of the Hakuto-R program by ispace, Hakuto-R Mission 2, carrying the RESILIENCE lunar lander and TENACIOUS micro rover, was launched on 15 January 2025 on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle with Blue Ghost M1 lander.^[119] Landing was expected in Mare Frigoris around 6 June 2025.^[120] The mission was scheduled to land on Thursday, 5 June, at 19:17 UTC, assuming the primary landing spot in the middle of Mare Frigoris was chosen. If ispace decided to use one of the three backup landing sites, those attempts would occur on different times.^[121]^[122]\n

According to the live telemetry, it flipped over and died one minute before landing.\n

IM-2 Athena (USA)

Intuitive Machines's lunar lander IM-2, carrying NASA-sponsored experiments and commercial rovers (Yaoki, AstroAnt, Micro-Nova and MAPP LV1) and payloads as a part of Commercial Lunar Payload Services program to Mons Mouton, was launched on 27 February 2025 on a Falcon 9 launch vehicle with Brokkr-2 and Lunar Trailblazer.^[123] IM-2 landed on 6 March 2025. The spacecraft was intact after touchdown but resting on its side, thereby complicating its planned science and technology demonstration mission; this outcome is similar to what occurred with the company's IM-1 Odysseus spacecraft in 2024.^[124]^[125] \n

On March 13, Intuitive Machines shared that, like on the IM-1 mission, the Athena's altimeter had failed during landing, leaving its onboard computer without an accurate altitude reading. As a result, the spacecraft struck a plateau, tipped over, and skidded across the lunar surface, rolling once or twice before settling inside the crater. The company's CEO compared it to a baseball player sliding into a base. During the slide, the spacecraft rolled once or twice, before coming to rest inside the crater. The impact also kicked up regolith that coated the solar panels in dust, further degrading their performance.^[126]\n

Landings on moons of other Solar System bodies

21st century progress in space exploration has broadened the phrase moon landing to include other moons in the Solar System. The Huygens probe of the Cassini–Huygens mission to Saturn performed a successful moon landing on Titan in 2005. The Soviet probe Phobos 2 came within 190 km (120 mi) of performing a landing on Mars' moon Phobos in 1989 before radio contact with that lander was suddenly lost. A similar Russian sample return mission called Fobos-Grunt (\"grunt\" means \"soil\" in Russian) launched in November 2011, but stalled in low Earth orbit. There is widespread interest in performing a future landing on Jupiter's moon Europa to drill down and explore the possible liquid water ocean beneath its icy surface.^[127]\n

Proposed future missions

Main article: List of missions to the Moon § Future missions

The Lunar Polar Exploration Mission is a robotic space mission concept by ISRO and Japan's space agency JAXA that would send a lunar rover and lander to explore south pole region of the Moon no earlier than 2028.^[128] ISRO, following the success of Chandrayaan 3, plans to launch Chandrayaan 4, a lunar sample return mission, which would possibly be the first to return soil from the water-rich south polar basin, in a landing close to Statio Shiv Shakti. The mission is planned by late 2028. Both nations are also active participants in the Artemis program.^[129]^[130]\n

In December 2017, US President Donald Trump signed Space Policy Directive-1, which directed NASA to return to the Moon with a crewed mission, for long-term exploration and use and missions to other planets.^[131] In March 2019, Vice President Mike Pence formally announced that the mission will include the first woman and person of color to travel to the lunar surface.^[132] The Artemis program had intended to land a crewed mission on the Moon in 2024, and to begin sustained operations by 2028, supported by a planned Lunar Gateway space station in lunar orbit in favor of a permanent lunar base.^[133] The NASA lunar landing mission, Artemis IV, has since been postponed to launch no earlier than early 2028, and the Gateway was cancelled in March 2026.^[134] In April 2026, NASA launched the Artemis II test mission, sending four astronauts around the Moon on a ten-day lunar flyby without entering orbit.^[135] The crew included the first woman, first Black man, and first Canadian to travel to lunar space.\n

The Chinese Lunar Exploration Program plans three additional Chang'e uncrewed missions between 2025 and 2028, in active preparation for the International Lunar Research Station it plans to construct with Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates in the 2030s. In addition, the China Manned Space Agency intends to conduct crewed lunar landings by 2029 or 2030; in preparation for this effort, the various Chinese space agencies and contractors are currently developing a human-rated super-heavy launch vehicle (the Long March 10), a new crewed lunar spacecraft, and a crewed lunar lander.^[136]\n

Russia's Roscosmos has announced plans to launch a lunar polar orbiter, Luna 26, in 2028.^[137]\n

References

^ \"Manned Space Chronology: Apollo_11\". spaceline.org. Retrieved 6 February 2008.\n
^ \"Apollo Anniversary: Moon Landing \"Inspired World\"\". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 21 July 2004. Retrieved 6 February 2008.\n
^ \"Luna 2\". NASA–NSSDC.\n
^ NASA Apollo 11 40th anniversary.\n
^ \"Chinese spacecraft makes first landing on moon's far side\". AP NEWS. 3 January 2019. Retrieved 3 January 2019.\n
^ Kumar, Hari; Travelli, Alex; Mashal, Mujib; Chang, Kenneth (23 August 2023). \"India Moon Landing: In Latest Moon Race, India Lands First in Southern Polar Region\". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 25 August 2023.\n
^ Sheetz, Michael (19 January 2024). \"Japan announces successful SLIM lunar landing, fifth country to reach moon's surface\". CNBC. Retrieved 19 January 2024.\n
^ Dhillon, Amrit (23 August 2023). \"India lands spacecraft near south pole of moon in world first\". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 23 August 2023.\n
^ \"Chandrayaan 3 Landing Live: ISRO's Chandrayaan-3 Vikram lander makes successful soft-landing on Moon\". The Times of India. 23 August 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.\n
^ Sample, Ian (19 January 2024). \"Japan's Slim spacecraft lands on moon but struggles to generate power\". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 19 January 2024. Retrieved 19 January 2024.\n
^ ^a ^b SpaceX gearing up to launch Intuitive Machines private moon lander in February Space.com. By Mike Wall. 31 January 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.\n
^ David, Emillia (22 February 2024). \"Odysseus achieves the first US Moon landing since 1972\". The Verge. Retrieved 23 February 2024.\n
^ \"Sideways moon landing cuts mission short, private US lunar lander will stop working Tuesday\". Quartz. 26 February 2024. Retrieved 27 October 2025.\n
^ \"Intuitive Machines returns to the Moon\". NASA. 21 February 2025. Retrieved 27 October 2025.\n
^ \"Intuitive Machines historic IM-1 mission success: American ingenuity never gives up\". Intuitive Machines. 29 February 2024. Retrieved 27 October 2025.\n
^ \"NASA Selects Firefly Aerospace for Artemis Commercial Moon Delivery in 2023\". NASA (Press release). 4 February 2021. Archived from the original on 4 February 2021. Retrieved 4 February 2021.\n
^ Harwood, William (2 March 2025). \"Texas company pulls off first fully successful commercial landing on the moon (CBS News)\". nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. CBS. Retrieved 2 March 2025.\n
^ \"NASA science continues after Firefly's first Moon mission concludes\". NASA. 18 March 2025. Retrieved 27 October 2025.\n
^ ^a ^b ^c \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 3 Details\". Retrieved 17 February 2011.\n
^ \"Escape from the Moon!\". Archived from the original on 26 July 2011. Retrieved 17 February 2011.\n
^ \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Lun 2 Details\". Retrieved 17 February 2011.\n
^ \"Homepage of V.V Pustynski for students of YFT0060\". Estonia: Tartu Observatory. Retrieved 17 February 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)\n
^ \"The start of the Space Race (article)\". Khan Academy. Retrieved 27 November 2023.\n
^ Hurley, Steve (19 September 2022). \"4 October 1957 – Sputnik 1\". Explaining Science. Retrieved 27 November 2023.\n
^ JPL Pioneer Mission Archived 28 September 2009 at the Wayback Machine.\n
^ Lunar Impact\"Lunar Missions 1958 through 1965\" (PDF). Nasa History Series. Retrieved 9 September 2009.\n
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 4 Details\". Retrieved 17 February 2011.\n
^ \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 6 Details\". Retrieved 17 February 2011.\n
^ ^a ^b \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 5 Details\". Retrieved 17 February 2011.\n
^ \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 7 Details\".\n
^ \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 8 Details\".\n
^ \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 9 Details\".\n
^ ^a ^b \"Able 1 (Pioneer 0) - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 14 November 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2023.\n
^ ^a ^b \"Able 2 (Pioneer 1) - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 21 December 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2023.\n
^ ^a ^b \"Pioneer 2 - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 14 November 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2023.\n
^ ^a ^b \"Pioneer 3 - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 14 November 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2023.\n
^ ^a ^b \"Pioneer 4 - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 14 November 2017. Retrieved 27 November 2023.\n
^ \"Pioneer P-1, P-3, P-30, P-31\". Gunter's Space Page. Retrieved 29 November 2023.\n
^ \"NASA - NSSDCA - Spacecraft - Details\". nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 29 November 2023.\n
^ \"NASA - NSSDCA - Spacecraft - Details\". nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 29 November 2023.\n
^ \"NASA - NSSDCA - Spacecraft - Details\". nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 29 November 2023.\n
^ \"Mariner Spacecraft\". NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Retrieved 29 November 2023.\n
^ \"Ranger Block I Design (Rangers 1 and 2) - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 12 April 2019. Retrieved 29 November 2023.\n
^ \"Ranger Block II Design (Rangers 3, 4 and 5) - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 12 April 2019. Retrieved 29 November 2023.\n
^ \"Ranger 6, 7, 8, 9 (Block 3)\". Gunter's Space Page. Retrieved 29 November 2023.\n
^ ^a ^b \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 1 Details\". Retrieved 17 February 2011.\n
^ \"NASA – NSSDC – Spacecraft – Ranger 2 Details\". Retrieved 17 February 2011.\n
^ \"Ranger 3-4-5\". www.astronautix.com. Retrieved 30 November 2023.\n
^ JFK Library, Listening In: JFK on Getting to the Moon on YouTube, meeting with NASA Administrator James Webb, NASA Deputy Administrator Robert Seamans, and Special Assistant to the President Jerome Wiesner / Nov 1962, minutes 2:58–ff.\n
^ Nicks, O. W. (June 1985). \"ch8\". history.nasa.gov. Retrieved 30 November 2023.\n
^ \"Ranger 3 - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 21 December 2017. Retrieved 30 November 2023.\n
^ \"Ranger 4 - NASA Science\". science.nasa.gov. 21 December 2017. Retrieved 30 November 2023.\n
^ \"Astronautix Luna E-6\". Archived from the original on 15 March 2016. Retrieved 11 April 2022.\n
^ \"Moon Exploration\". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 15 December 2007. Retrieved 17 September 2009.\n
^ Burrows, William E. (1999). This New Ocean: The Story of the First Space Age. Modern Library. p. 432. ISBN 0-375-75485-7.\n
^ Launius, Roger D. (10 July 2019). \"First Moon landing was nearly a US–Soviet mission\". Nature. 571 (7764): 167–168. Bibcode:2019Natur.571..167L. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-02088-4. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 31292553. S2CID 195873630.\n
^ The Mission of Luna 16\n
^ \"In the Shadow of the Moon\". comingsoon.net. 8 September 2007. Retrieved 7 February 2008.\n
^ In Event of Moon Disaster.\n
^ \"Sir Arthur C. Clarke\".\n
^ \"Apollo TV Tapes: The Search Continues\". space.com. 3 November 2006. Retrieved 8 February 2008.\n
^ \"3 original NASA moon landing videos sell for $1.82 million at auction\". CNN. 22 July 2019. Retrieved 22 July 2019.\n
^ \"The American Flags On The Moon Have All Turned White\". Business Insider. Retrieved 28 July 2014.\n
^ ^a ^b \"Apollo Moon Landing Flags Still Standing, Photos Reveal\". Space.com. Retrieved 10 October 2014\n
^ Hiten, NSSDC, NASA. Accessed on line 18 October 2010.\n
^ \"Eureka! Ice Found At Lunar Poles\". NASA. 2012. Archived from the original on 9 December 2006. Retrieved 29 December 2012.\n
^ SMART 1, NSSDC, NASA. Accessed on line 18 October 2010.\n
^ \"Chandrayaan-I Impact Probe lands on the Moon\". The Times of India. 15 November 2008. Archived from the original on 22 October 2012. Retrieved 14 November 2008.\n
^ \"Chinese probe crashes into moon\", BBC News, 1 March 2009. Retrieved 18 October 2010.\n
^ \"KAGUYA Lunar Impact\". JAXA. Retrieved 24 June 2009.\n
^ \"NASA's LCROSS Mission Changes Impact Crater\". NASA. 29 September 2009. Archived from the original on 28 October 2009. Retrieved 21 November 2009.\n
^ TheStar.com, \"NASA crashes rocket into moon\".\n
^ \"Moon-bound twin GRAIL spacecraft launch success\". EarthSky.org. 10 September 2011.\n
^ Spaceflight101 Archived 11 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine\n
^ \"First of NASA's GRAIL Spacecraft Enters Moon Orbit\". NASA. Retrieved 1 January 2012.\n
^ GRAIL Twins crash into the Moon to complete highly successful Mission Archived 11 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine\n
^ \"Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE)\". National Space Science Data Center Master Catalog. NASA. Archived from the original on 13 August 2008.\n
^ Chang, Kenneth (18 April 2014). \"With Planned Crash, NASA Lunar Mission Comes to End\". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 April 2014.\n
^ Dunn, Marcia (18 April 2014). \"NASA's Moon-Orbiting Robot Crashes Down as Planned\". ABC News. Retrieved 18 April 2014.\n
^ Neal-Jones, Nancy (28 October 2014). \"NASA's LRO Spacecraft Captures Images of LADEE's Impact Crater\". NASA. Retrieved 28 October 2014.\n
^ Brown, Dwayne; Hoover, Rachel; Washington, Dewayne (18 April 2014). \"NASA Completes LADEE Mission with Planned Impact on Moon's Surface\". NASA.gov. Release 14–113. Retrieved 18 April 2014.\n
^ Foust, Jeff (13 February 2022). \"Chinese rocket, not Falcon 9, linked to upper stage on lunar impact trajectory\". Retrieved 5 March 2022.\n
^ Howell, Elizabeth (3 March 2022). \"A rogue 3-ton piece rocket debris just collided with the moon\". Space.com. Retrieved 5 March 2022.\n
^ \"Abandoned rocket 'hits the Moon' - scientists\". BBC News. 4 March 2022. Retrieved 5 March 2022.\n
^ \"China lands Jade Rabbit robot rover on Moon\". BBC. 14 December 2013.\n
^ Denyer, Simon (14 December 2013). \"China carries out first soft landing on moon in 37 years\". The Washington Post.\n
^ Stephen Clark (4 August 2016). \"China's Yutu rover dies on the moon\". Spaceflight Now. Retrieved 5 August 2016.\n
^ \"Chang'e 4: China probe lands on far side of the moon\". The Guardian. 3 January 2019. Retrieved 3 January 2019.\n
^ Jones, Andrew (7 December 2018). \"China launches Chang'e-4 spacecraft for pioneering lunar far side landing mission\". SpaceNews. Retrieved 25 August 2022.\n
^ Jones, Andrew (5 October 2021). \"1,000 days on the moon! China's Chang'e 4 lunar far side mission hits big milestone\". Space.com. Retrieved 25 August 2022.\n
^ \"嫦娥四号完成第44月昼工作进入第44月夜休眠\". 人民网 (in Chinese). 7 July 2022. Retrieved 25 August 2022.\n
^ \"First privately funded lunar landing\". NBC News. 14 February 2019.\n
^ \"First privately funded moon lander crash-lands\". Science & Innovation. 11 April 2019. Archived from the original on 11 April 2019. Retrieved 11 April 2019.\n
^ \"India announces new date for space launch\". BBC News. 18 July 2019. Retrieved 21 July 2019.\n
^ \"India moon mission set to launch a week after it was aborted\". The Washington Post. 22 July 2019. Archived from the original on 22 July 2019.\n
^ \"'Chandrayaan 2 will carry NASA's laser instruments to Moon'\". The Hindu. PTI. 26 March 2019. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 14 April 2019.\n
^ Gray, Tyler (6 September 2019). \"ISRO lose contact with Chandrayaan-2 lander during final descent\". NASA Spaceflight.com. Retrieved 10 September 2019.\n
^ Foust, Jeff (26 May 2023). \"Software problem blamed for ispace lunar lander crash\". SpaceNews.\n
^ \"Chinese spacecraft sets off on Moon sample quest\". BBC News. 23 November 2020. Retrieved 28 November 2020.\n
^ Jones, Andrew (6 December 2020). \"China's Chang'e 5 aces lunar orbit docking needed to bring moon samples home\". Space.com. Retrieved 7 December 2020.\n
^ Jones, Andrew (16 December 2020). \"China recovers Chang'e-5 moon samples after complex 23-day mission\". SpaceNews. Retrieved 25 August 2022.\n
^ Berger, Eric (19 August 2023). \"Russia's Luna 25 spacecraft has crashed into the Moon\". Retrieved 20 August 2023.\n
^ \"Chandrayaan-3 Details\". www.isro.gov.in. Retrieved 23 August 2023.\n
^ \"Chandrayaan-3\". www.bbc.com. 23 August 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023.\n
^ Chang, Kenneth (19 January 2024). \"Japan Becomes Fifth Country to Land on the Moon\". The New York Times.\n
^ Chang, Kenneth; Ueno, Hisako (25 January 2024). \"Japan Explains How It Made an Upside-Down Moon Landing\". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 February 2024.\n
^ ^a ^b Sample, Ian (19 January 2024). \"Japan's Slim spacecraft lands on moon but struggles to generate power\". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 20 January 2024.\n
^ \"Japan: Moon lander Slim comes back to life and resumes mission\". 29 January 2024. Retrieved 23 February 2024.\n
^ David, Emillia (22 February 2024). \"Odysseus achieves the first US Moon landing since 1972\". The Verge. Retrieved 23 February 2024.\n
^ \"NASA, Intuitive Machines Share Images from the Moon, Provide Science Updates – Artemis\". blogs.nasa.gov. 28 February 2024. Retrieved 29 February 2024.\n
^ \"2/3 mission plans and procedures in order to deploy its CubeSat camera system. Despite the team's strong effort, the technical complications ultimately resulted in an inability to capture images of the Odysseus lander\". X (formerly Twitter).\n
^ Andrew Jones [@AJ_FI] (25 April 2023). \"China's Chang'e-6 sample return mission (a first ever lunar far side sample-return) is scheduled to launch in May 2024, and expected to take 53 days from launch to return module touchdown. Targeting southern area of Apollo basin (~43º S, 154º W)\" (Tweet) – via Twitter.\n
^ Jones, Andrew (10 January 2024). \"China's Chang'e-6 probe arrives at spaceport for first-ever lunar far side sample mission\". SpaceNews. Retrieved 10 January 2024.\n
^ Jones, Andrew (6 May 2024). \"China's Chang'e-6 is carrying a surprise rover to the moon\". SpaceNews. Archived from the original on 8 May 2024. Retrieved 8 May 2024.\n
^ Jones, Andrew (1 June 2024). \"Chang'e-6 lands on far side of the moon to collect unique lunar samples\". SpaceNews. Retrieved 1 June 2024.\n
^ Seger Yu [@SegerYu] (1 June 2024). \"落月时刻 2024-06-02 06:23:15.861\" (Tweet) (in Chinese) – via X (formerly Twitter).\n
^ \"NASA Selects Firefly Aerospace for Artemis Commercial Moon Delivery in 2023\". NASA (Press release). 4 February 2021. Archived from the original on 4 February 2021. Retrieved 4 February 2021.\n
^ \"Lunar Lander\". Firefly Aerospace. 1 February 2021. Archived from the original on 5 February 2021. Retrieved 4 February 2021.\n
^ \"ispace Announces Mission 2 with Unveiling of Micro Rover Design\". ispace. 16 November 2023. Retrieved 21 November 2023.\n
^ \"ispace Announces Mission 2 Landing Date Set for June 6, 2025 (JST)\". ispace, Inc. 4 March 2025. Retrieved 4 March 2025.\n
^ Tariq Malik (3 June 2025). \"What time will Japan's ispace Resilience probe land on the moon on June 5?\". Space. Retrieved 4 June 2025.\n
^ \"ispace Updates Timing for Expected Touchdown on the Lunar Surface to 4:17 a.m. JST\". ispace. Retrieved 5 June 2025.\n
^ \"Intuitive Machines' IM-2 Lunar Lander Successfully Commissioned and En Route to the Moon\". investors.intuitivemachines.com. 27 February 2025. Retrieved 27 February 2025.\n
^ Foust, Jeff (6 March 2025). \"IM-2 lunar lander on its side after touchdown\". SpaceNews. Retrieved 6 March 2025.\n
^ \"IM-2\". intuitivemachines.com. Retrieved 27 February 2025.\n
^ Berger, Eric (13 March 2025). \"Athena landed in a dark crater where the temperature was minus 280° F\". Ars Technica. Retrieved 13 March 2025.\n
^ Grush, Loren (8 October 2018). \"Future spacecraft landing on Jupiter's moon Europa may have to navigate jagged blades of ice\". The Verge.\n
^ Jones, Andrew (23 October 2024). \"India to target moon's south pole with sample return mission\". SpaceNews. Retrieved 8 May 2026.\n
^ \"Episode 82: Jaxa and International Collaboration with Professor Fujimoto Masaki\". AstrotalkUK. 4 January 2019. Retrieved 21 June 2019.\n
^ Hoshino, Takeshi; Ohtake, Makiko; Karouji, Yuzuru; Shiraishi, Hiroaki (May 2019). \"Current status of a Japanese lunar polar exploration mission\". Archived from the original on 25 July 2019. Retrieved 25 July 2019.\n
^ \"Text of Remarks at Signing of Trump Space Policy Directive 1 and List of Attendees\" Archived 12 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Marcia Smith, Space Policy Online, 11 December 2017, accessed 21 August 2018.\n
^ Smith-Schoenwalder, Cecelia (26 March 2019). \"Pence Tells NASA to Put Americans on the Moon in 5 Years\". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 20 February 2021.\n
^ White House endorses Artemis program\n
^ Cameron, Claire. \"NASA scraps 2027 Artemis III moon landing in favor of 2028 mission\". Scientific American. Retrieved 7 April 2026.\n
^ \"Artemis II\". NASA. Retrieved 2 April 2026.\n
^ Andrew Jones (17 July 2023). \"China sets out preliminary crewed lunar landing plan\". spacenews.com. Retrieved 24 July 2023.\n
^ Honney, Tracey (4 February 2026). \"Russia resets lunar programme\". Nuclear Engineering International. Retrieved 8 May 2026. The programme has now been officially rescheduled to prioritise the Luna 26 orbiter for 2028.\n

External links

NASA's page on Moon landings, missions, etc. (includes information on other space agencies' missions).
Project Apollo Archive Flickr Gallery: an independently organized collection of high-res photos for the Moon Landing and the Apollo Missions.
Apollo in Real Time: an independently organized collection of different Apollo missions media, creating a comprehensive and interactive documentation of Apollo missions.

Lunar landing missions

Active

Robotic	\n Chang'e 4 \n

Past

Crewed	\n Apollo 11 \n 12 \n 14 \n 15 \n 16 \n 17 \n
Robotic	\n Blue Ghost M1 \n Chandrayaan-3 \n Chang'e 3 \n 5 \n 6 \n Luna 9 \n 13 \n 16 \n 17 \n 20 \n 21 \n 23 \n 24 \n IM-1 \n 2 \n SLIM \n Surveyor 1 \n 3 \n 5 \n 6 \n 7 \n

Failed

Planned

Artemis	\n Artemis IV (2028) \n V (2028) \n
CLEP	\n Chang'e 7 (2026) \n 8 (2028) \n
CLPS	\n Blue Ghost M2 (2027) \n M3 (2028) \n M4 (2029) \n Blue Moon Pathfinder 1 (2027) \n Pathfinder 2 (2027) \n Griffin M1 (2026) \n IM-3 (2026) \n
KLEP	\n Korean lunar lander (2032) \n
Luna-Glob	\n Luna 27A (2029) \n 27B (2030) \n 28 (2034) \n
Others	\n Hakuto-R M3 (ispace, 2028) \n

Proposed

CLPS	\n Redwire \n Draper \n Firefly \n Masten \n MoonEx \n OrbitBeyond \n McCandless \n
Others	\n Beresheet 2 (SpaceIL) \n Nyx Moon (The Exploration Company) \n Argonaut \n

v t e Crewed lunar spacecraft
Orbiters	\n Apollo command and service module \n Mengzhou \n Orion \n	$\"Apollo$
Landers	\n Apollo Lunar Module \n Blue Moon \n Lanyue \n Starship HLS \n
Proposed	\n Boeing Lunar Lander \n Lockheed Martin Lunar Lander \n Orel \n
Cancelled	\n LK-1 / LK-700\n VA \n Zond (Soyuz 7K-L1) \n LOK (Soyuz 7K-L3) \n Lunniy Korabl \n Altair \n Lunar Gateway‎ \n
Lists	\n Moon landing \n List of lunar probes \n List of artificial objects on the Moon \n List of missions to the Moon \n

v t e People who have traveled to the Moon
Walked on the Moon	\n Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11) \n Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11) \n Pete Conrad (Apollo 12) \n Alan Bean (Apollo 12) \n Alan Shepard (Apollo 14) \n Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14) \n David Scott (Apollo 15) \n James Irwin (Apollo 15) \n John Young (Apollo 16) \n Charles Duke (Apollo 16) \n Gene Cernan (Apollo 17) \n Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) \n
Orbited the Moon without landing	\n William Anders (Apollo 8) \n Frank Borman (Apollo 8) \n Jim Lovell (Apollo 8) \n Gene Cernan (Apollo 10) \n Thomas Stafford (Apollo 10) \n John Young (Apollo 10) \n Michael Collins (Apollo 11) \n Dick Gordon (Apollo 12) \n Stuart Roosa (Apollo 14) \n Al Worden (Apollo 15) \n Ken Mattingly (Apollo 16) \n Ronald Evans (Apollo 17) \n
Flew around the Moon	\n Fred Haise (Apollo 13) \n Jim Lovell (Apollo 13) \n Jack Swigert (Apollo 13) \n Victor Glover (Artemis II) \n Jeremy Hansen (Artemis II) \n Christina Koch (Artemis II) \n Reid Wiseman (Artemis II) \n
\n Apollo program \n Artemis program \n Saturn V \n Command and Service Module \n Lunar Module \n Orion (spacecraft) \n Lunar Roving Vehicle \n Exploration of the Moon \n

v t e Moon
Outline
Physical properties	\n Internal structure \n Topography \n Atmosphere \n Gravity field\n Hill sphere \n Magnetic field \n Sodium tail \n Moonlight\n Earthlight \n	$\"A$
Orbit	\n Orbital elements\n Distance\n Perigee and apogee \n Libration \n Nodes\n Nodal period \n Precession \n Syzygy\n New moon \n Full moon \n Eclipses\n Lunar eclipse\n Total penumbral lunar eclipse \n Tetrad \n Solar eclipse \n Solar eclipses on the Moon \n Eclipse cycle \n Supermoon \n Tide\n Tidal force \n Tidal locking \n Tidal acceleration \n Tidal range \n Kordylewski clouds \n Lunar station \n
Surface and features	\n Selenography \n Terminator \n Limb \n Hemispheres\n Near side \n Far side \n Poles\n North pole \n South pole\n Face \n Maria\n List \n Mountains\n Peak of eternal light \n Valleys \n Volcanic features\n Domes \n Calderas \n Lava tubes \n Craters\n List\n A–B \n C–F \n G–K \n L–N \n O–Q \n R–S \n T–Z \n Ray systems \n Permanently shadowed craters \n South Pole–Aitken basin \n Regolith\n swirls \n Rilles \n Wrinkle ridges \n Rocks\n Lunar basalt 70017 \n Changesite-(Y) \n Water \n Space weathering\n Micrometeorite \n Sputtering \n Quakes \n Transient lunar phenomenon \n Selenographic coordinate system \n
Science	\n Observation \n Libration \n Lunar theory \n Origin\n Giant-impact hypothesis\n Theia \n Lunar magma ocean \n Geology\n Timescale\n Late Heavy Bombardment \n Lunar meteorites \n KREEP \n Volcanism \n Experiments\n Lunar laser ranging \n ALSEP \n Lunar sample displays\n Apollo 11 \n Apollo 17 \n Lunar seismology \n
Exploration	\n Missions\n Apollo program \n Artemis program \n Explorers \n Probes \n Landing \n Colonization\n Moonbase \n Tourism \n Lunar habitation \n Lunar resources \n
Time-telling and navigation	\n Lunar calendar \n Lunisolar calendar \n Month\n Lunar month\n Nodal period \n Fortnight \n Sennight \n Lunar station \n Lunar distance \n
Phases and names	\n New \n Full\n Names \n Crescent \n Super and micro \n Blood \n Blue \n Dark \n Wet \n Tetrad \n
Daily phenomena	\n Moonrise \n Meridian passage \n Moonset \n
In culture	\n Craters named after people \n Lunar deity \n Lunar pareidolia\n Man in the Moon \n Moon rabbit \n Memorials on the Moon \n Moon in science fiction\n list \n Apollo era \n futuristic exploration \n Hollow Moon \n Moon landing conspiracy theories \n Moon Treaty \n \"Moon is made of green cheese\" \n Splitting of the Moon \n
Related	\n Artificial objects on the Moon \n Lunar effect \n Earth phase \n Moon illusion \n Natural satellite \n Double planet \n Lilith (hypothetical second moon) \n
\n $\"\"$ Category \n

Portals:

Authority control databases $\"Edit$
International	GND
National	United States Israel
Other	Yale LUX

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

","displaytitle":"Moon landing"}}