laura: what went wrong with the luna-25? the russian spacecraft crashed on the moon instead of making a soft landing at the south pole. as other countries competed in the race to space, what lessons are being learned from the failure? this is "inside story." ♪ hello there and welcome to the program. i'm laura kyle. it was a mission to elevate russia's standing both at home and in space, but the luna-25

spacecraft failed to stick its landing. the crash is raising questions about moscow's space program, particularly as russia becomes more isolated from the west. competition is relentless. alongside russia, india, china and the u.s. are all looking to explore whether there's water and other resources on the south pole of the moon. so, how big of a setback has a criminal suffered, and what does it mean for rival programs and business ventures out of this world? we will get to that with our guests in just a moment. but first, here is our correspondent. reporter: it was russia's first mission to the moon in almost 50 years. but the luna-25 lunar lander failed to live up to its name. it crashed onto the surface of the moon, exposing challenges perhaps beyond russia's space program. >> western sanctions imposed on russia prevented them access to

very anti--- very high-performance microelectronic components, which they need for this place. because the supply chain has collapsed, they are having to either bypass it in some other way or build instrumentation at home. reporter: the race is about space exploration and prestige, but also about business. scientists believe parts of the moon may hold deposits of ice for drinking water, and other precious elements that in the future, could be mined by astronauts. competition is growing. india is expecting its own spacecraft, chandrayaan 3, to do what the russians couldn't and land on the lunar south pole on wednesday. along with the u.s., china, and russia, india is also spending big on expanding its reach in space. >> it is a moment of glory for all of us, a moment of glory for india, and i think a moment of

destiny for all of us that we are part of history in the making. reporter: collaboration between the russian space agency roscosmos and some of its counterparts, like nasa, were broken off after russia's invasion of ukraine. some analysts say that the luna-25 crash underscores the decline of russia space power since the glory days of the soviet union, when sputnik one blasted off in 1957, the first satellite ever to orbit the earth. it is not uncommon for space missions to fail, but russia needed a win is a sign of defiance, and national pride. ♪ laura: let's bring in our guests now. in chevy chase, maryland, we have steve maran, retired astronomer at nasa and astrophysicist at nasa's goddard space flight center. steve is also author of the guidebook "astronomy for dummies."

in the indian capital, new delhi, is retired lieutenant general anil kumar bhatt. he is also director general of the indian space association. and in philadelphia, in the u.s., we have derrick pitts. he's chief astronomer and planetarium program director at the franklin institute. a very warm welcome to all of you. derrick, the big question that everyone is asking today is, what happened? what went wrong with the luna-25? guest: from the reports that we have had so far, there is an indication that there was a malfunction with a landing maneuver that the russians were attempting to begin the landing sequence. they were moving from one orbit level down to another orbit level, and as far as we know, either the rocket fired too long fired too little, or fired in the wrong direction, and the result was a crash onto the surface. so, unfortunately, that last

landing maneuver, it seems, did not work. laura: steve, how embarrassing is this for muska? it is a far cry from the sophisticated soviet union. guest: it is. they landed a number of times in the past. on the moon, they landed successfully, the only ones to do it 10 times on the surface of venus. and across -- that crash comes at an embarrassing time because another nation is about to try and do the same thing. but in fairness, people, nations, companies crash on the moon all the time. there have been two crashes on the moon in april alone of this year by two different nations. laura: will get to that other nation in just a moment. it is, of course, india. steve, why do you think at this particular time it might have happened? do you think we should be looking at your political

reasons, at the state of russia's economy, the ukraine war? all of these issues, they play into the space program? guest: i think they do. ukraine, not so much because this lunar landing was planned for a long time. but at some point, what was the soviet program became the russian program, lost a lot of funding, lost political emphasis. the truth that most of the early space programs were intended for geopolitical prestige more than science, so they have not had the study funding that nasa and some other nations have had for many years to get practice in building spacecraft flying missions without the latest technologies. the russians also may be behind in some technologies, but also , there are crashes and unexpected events that can occur to anyone program. laura: ok, general bhatt, let's

get to india. before we do, i can see, derrick, you want to say something? do you want to jump in? guest: laura, i was going to point out that it has not helped russia, the russian space program at all. the embargoes that have been imposed on russia since the beginning of the conflict with ukraine. one result of that is the lack of supply of hardened electronics and very, very reliable electronics that are needed to sustain spacecraft and the horrible environment of space. think of space really in the way we should, which is that it is not a benign environment at all. it is very difficult for electronics and all that makes this difficult for any country. if you don't have the components you need because of political embargoes, then that does multiply your chances of running into a problem. laura: ok, let's look ahead to

what we think will be a more successful operation in the next couple of days. general bhatt, the spotlight is now in india, but on the heels of russia. could be the first mission to land on the far side of the moon. are you confident of success? guest: definitely. after india's already had two missions, chandrayaan one which was a total success. chandrayaan 2 which was partially successful and, of course, crash landed. but the lessons learned from that, i am very sure, have been picked up very well. and this time they have had all the failsafe mechanisms put into it. they have learned the right lessons, and i am very sure in the next two days, we will have good news when the vikram lander lands. it is a tough call, but i am so confident that this time, we

will be ready. laura: their differences here between yours and the russian program, because as you say, this is the third time you are attempting this. you have had one success and one partial success. the russians, on the other hand, had not tried to land on the moon in 50 years. guest: oh, yes. although if you see in terms of record, they are one of the nations which has landed on them. there has been a large gap. and at times maybe there is some loss of expertise. but the most important thing, like one of my other fellow panelists has said, space this unforgiving. any small mistake can lead to a successful mission becoming unsuccessful. that is what would have happened. laura: i guess that's what makes it so compulsive and so fascinating for so many people. give us an idea, general bhatt, of what chad ryland three

chandrayaan 3's mission is going 's mission chandrayaan 3's mission is going to be on this far side on the south pole of the moon. guest: presently, the stated mission is landing on the far side of the moon. the rover will be tried out along with the lender. also, there will be a number of scientific tests, including the testing of soil and other instruments. laura: one more question before we move on to our other guests. india was the first to discover water on the moon some 10 years ago. that is a key issue, isn't it, or a reason for people to return there again and again. do we have any idea how to extract water from the moon? guest: well, me not being a scientist, would not be able to answer your question completely. but what we have learned from our first mission and the things

that are happening, we are expecting that on the southern side, we will find water, and that will be very important for future missions which go to the moon, or maybe for exploration of other parts of space. laura: ok. what does happen when one does find water on the moon? what is the next step? guest: the big step, unfortunately in the opinion of some people who are concerned about preserving the lunar environment like a national park, is that you find ways to exploit it. it is critical to find ice on the moon, but we're pretty sure there is no bottled water there, no actual ocean on the moon, no underground springs. it is going to be in the form of ice. there are some traces of water vapor because the ice evaporates

or sublimates. so you have to see exactly what form the ice is. is it all tiny particles? mixed up in the lunar soil which is sharp and cutting particles and dangerous to handle let alone inhale? they get in your lunar pod. so in exactly what form it is, and develop the technology that best extracts it, filters out the rock particles, and turns it into a liquid or compressed gas. you need this water, because if you're going to have people working on the moon for more than a few days as they did when the nasa astronauts were there in the 1970's, they have to have oxygen to breathe, they have to have water to drink and for

other purposes. if you have almost any industrial process or even just cooking, you need water. you can't bring it with you -- if you bring it from earth in a few days, you can't bring enough to stay there for a month or two or indefinitely, because for every pound of water, you need many more pounds of rocket repellent, and you need a rocket bigger than even elon musk complicates making to develop the moon, to live on the moon. you need water and oxygen. you can get the water from the ice, you can take some of that water and spread it electrically into oxygen and hydrogen, the oxygen to breathe and to be used as oxidizer and rocket fuel to get you home or to go somewhere else. so, water is critical. laura: do you think we should exploit the water and the resources on the moon, or should

we preserve the natural environment there? guest: i think we can do both, as we do on earth. the miners don't have a great record. there are people who fear they will have a worse record on the moon where there are no local inhabitants to have a picket line. but it is almost inevitable. it may start because of political rivalry, but there are also resources there. one of the things that has not been mentioned is helium-3, a heavy and rare isotope of the gas helium. it is apparently present in abundance with lunar soil where it is trapped from the solar wind that beats down on the moon continuously. it doesn't beat down on the surface of the earth because it's deflected by the radiation belts in our magnetosphere. helium-3, many physicists

consider it the ideal fuel for future nuclear fusion plans. that might solve the energy problem on earth if we survive the climate problems in time. laura: derrick, steve has brought up a lot of points there. a lot of valuable resources firstly that appear to be on the moon. is there going to be a big question over who owns them, who has the right to exploit them and who can benefit from them? guest: well, festival, who knew that the south pole of the moon was going to become so popular? [laughter] it was the discovery of water there that really started that part of the popularity. and as steve points out, this is incredibly important because of the need for the resources to explore the rest of the solar system. but as far as ownership of the moon is concerned, there have been policies in place since the 1960's that talk about ownership

, and the intention was that the moon was going to be very much like the research basis in antarctica where no one owns the moon or organs any of the planets. so it really has brought down to who can get their first to exploit what resources are there. so i don't think we're going to see anytime soon, any kind of lease arrangements or any real estate sales or partials of the moon or anything like that. it all really comes down to who gets to make use of the resources available. laura: india at the moment is leading that race. is this a conversation being had in new delhi? and why is the prime minister narendra modi making space exploration such a priority? guest: firstly, space is ultimate in science. fortunately for india, in the last 60 years, the government

has kept us in the high table of the space-faring nations. one part of it is recession exploration. the second part is the commercial part or the usage of space, which has now touched every life everywhere. space has become a necessary part be it for communication, be it for remote sensing or for navigation. along with what was led by governments previously, now the private sector has also become a programmer. even our prime minister in 2020 made the historical decision of opening space to the private sector, and our nascent industry in the private domain is also now growing up. laura: looking at a private space industry in india, the private startups, they have

doubled since 2020. do they support the national program? are they in conflict with it? in competition with it? how does it all work? is everyone working together in one big cosmic happy family? guest: they are totally in coordination with our national program. in fact, we have had one successful launch by a startup, a sub-orbital launch. every student will have an orbital launch. another company is waiting to make engines by 3d printing. complete engine. all of them are being handheld by our space agency. it is a win-win situation with cooperation between government agencies and the private sector. even some of our new startups who have been able to make satellites and launch them successfully, have been provided all of the support from the and from isro.

laura: ok. derrick, do you want to jump in there? guest: with all due respect to all of the players in the space realm these days, we also have to keep in mind that this is also a question of national pride for every country that is involved in this, and it is also a story about the logical superiority. i think that one of the things that drove the space race, that has only driven space races, is the desire to demonstrate our technological superiority held by a nation. and thereby is a great source of national pride. so we can't leave out the fact that hybrid bat technological rarity in space also indicates, points out, and suggests to everyone else that you have a superior technology capability that may be beyond everyone else . that is also a very serious issue or consideration when we

think of all the other parts and pieces of wanting to do space exploration. all those altruistic pieces are nice and everything, but let's not forget about the parts of national pride and demonstration of technological superiority. laura: absolutely. steve that is a fair point, isn't it? i think you brought this up in the discussion, that there is a parallel track of national ambition, national pride, technological advancements, as derrick says, and science. do these two tracks go hand-in-hand and it comes to exploring space? then of course you have the commercial aspects, too, per they in conflict with each other -- are they in conflict with each other? guest: there is no more important satellite launcher than the private company spacex khabib because it launches more satellites every year tha

everybody elsen on earth put together, i think. they don't want more rockets, i don't think, then china, but they launch rockets every week with dozens of satellites on board. you get to the moon and nobody owns the place you are landing, nobody owns the place you are exploiting. everybody else has a right to land on the international space agreement. really just say that other bodies in the solar system beyond earth sort of come -- they are sort of common property. they don't lay down any principles and if they did, it doesn't mean we or anybody else would always follow them. the question is, however advanced first near one of those craters on the south pole of the moment where you have continuous , around-the-clock solar energy available, and continuous dark

shadow in the bottom where you can live safely and mined your water. whoever lands there, what if somebody lands right next to them? are they casting a shadow on their solar panel? are they encroaching on their limited deposit of ice? there is a lot of moon out there. there aren't a lot of known great places to land right now . let us say that everybody's there and in safe places, not interfering with each other in terms of the land that they are exploiting. what about communications back to earth? what about keeping time? time runs faster on the moon than the same clock on the earth. that is a problem that we are beginning to worry about coordinating. what about relating communications. does everybody have to have their own satellite, relay satellites orbiting the moon and

interfering with the radio telescopes with justin thomas hope will be put on the backside of the moon, which offers a unique opportunity? to listen in on pallets of other solar systems? there needs to be common infrastructure. who gets to enjoy these? private corporations which are driven by stockholders who may be greedy? there is a lot of human problems to be solved, as i think derrick was indicating. laura: where is the u.s. in its space program? why are we not seeing america or nassau trying to land on the south side of the moon? guest: well, that's where we heading. the artemis program that nasa has now undertaken and is, you know, a third of the way into it for building new rocketry and building new capsules to land on

the moon, is planning to do its next lunar orbit in 2025, i think. so they have plans to have boots on the moon in just a few years right after that. so they have a program. nasa has a program set up, a program working and operating that plans to return people on the moon. in fact whenever you talk to nasa about this, one thing they always say is that in this year of 2025, 2026 and 2027, we will land the first woman and person of color on the moon, this is their mantra about getting back to the moon. two aspects of this that are critically important going forward, one is that when you look at the commercial models for space exploration and expectation, there really aren't any working financial models yet that makes sense, in other words , yes, you can launch plenty of satellites, but who is making many at this on a long-term basis, particularly when we talk

about deep space exploration. is there a financial model that makes sense for an independent company to spend time mining space somehow? number two on the other side, as we mentioned earlier, this is challenging. space is hard. space is dangerous. space is deadly. one thing that could help everyone would be if this were a community endeavor instead of a separate endeavor that individual countries, if we could coordinate our efforts together, we could not only share the experience, we could share the risk as well and share the resources as well. but so far, because of the fact that this is much more about national pride and demonstration of technological superiority, all, and the research that goes along with it, right now we are in a place that we are all trying to do it individually. laura: general, do you hope for more cooperation with india, and if india is -- the you hope for

more cooperation in the future? there is cooperation there, but it is in bits, isn't it? guest: if i look back at the history of over space history, our allies have been usa, france, japan, even russia. space is one domain where all nations have cooperated until now. yes, there is national pride. there was at one time a major competition of the first satellite, the first man landing on the moon. but you see the international space station, it has been a great example of cooperation. a c corporation at bat in the future also when we explore the moon or maybe beyond the bars. laura: ok. well, on that very positive note, thank you very much to our guests for joining us.

general general anil kumar bhatt, we wish you the best of luck with the scheduled landing on the south side of the moon on wednesday. thanks also to steve maran and derrick pitts. and thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program again at any time by going to the website at aljazeera.com. for further discussion, to go to our facebook page. that is facebook.com/ajinsidestory. and, of course, you can join the conversation on x. our handle is at @ajinsidestory. from me, laura kyle, and the whole team here, it is bye for now. ♪