More below • Map: Where to land on the moon • Canada’s Apollo 11 contribution
Next month, Christy Caudill, a doctoral student at the University of Western Ontario, will be playing the part of a robot as she picks her way across a rock-strewn terrain of hardened and broken lava. She and her team will carry a set of scientific instruments built to examine the geology of another world. At the same time, in a mission control room in London, Ont., other colleagues will study the images and data streaming in from those instruments, as though they are receiving them from the Schrodinger basin, a 320-kilometre-wide impact crater on the far side of the moon that has attracted the attention of planetary scientists because of its intriguing volcanic features.
For two weeks, both sides of the exercise will be immersed in a simulation call CanMoon, designed to test procedures for operating a Canadian-built lunar rover. Only after a 10-hour shift each day will Ms. Caudill and her colleagues allow themselves to remember that they are on Lanzarote, one of the Canary Islands, which features some of the same rock types as the rover’s potential landing site.
“It’s all about gaining insight into how people think when they’re seeing through the rover’s eyes and to really discern what’s going on as they try to meet their mission goals,” said Ms. Caudill, a veteran of several previous simulations. “As far as I’m concerned, we won’t be on Lanzarote, we’ll be on the moon.”
That sense of actuality reflects the moon’s recent return to prominence as a destination for space explorers, almost 50 years after Neil Armstrong and Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin stepped and hopped across its surface.
Flashback: In 1969, Neil Armstrong took the first steps on the moon and then he and Buzz Aldrin received a special phone call. Watch to learn more.
For Ms. Caudill, who has participated in real-life robotic missions to Mars, there is a certain wistfulness in this. As a scientist, Mars is undeniably her destination of choice, she said. But human missions to Mars remain a distant goal fraught with unsolved challenges, including what to do about the heavy doses of radiation astronauts will be exposed to during a long interplanetary flight.
The moon has the advantage of being Earth’s celestial companion. While it is still a thousand times farther than the International Space Station (ISS), it presents more manageable risks for humans and a genuine business case for entrepreneurs looking for a stake in the next phase of space exploration.
Already this year, there is a sense of acceleration toward the moon. In January, China became the first country to place an unmanned lander on the moon’s far side, another step toward its own manned mission. This month, India is launching its first lunar lander. And in April SpaceIL, an Israeli non-profit, narrowly missed becoming the first privately funded organization to successfully place a spacecraft on the moon’s surface. All of this suggests that after years of uncertainty about where deep space exploration is heading, the extraterrestrial compass needle is swinging back toward Earth’s nearest neighbour. And unlike what happened after the Apollo program ended, the politics, economics and technology of space are lining up for something more permanent.
“The way in which it continues to be discussed is that we’re not going to go back to visit, we’re going to stay this time,” said Mike Greenley, president of MDA, which built and supports the Canadarm 2 aboard the ISS.
MDA is now part of Colorado-based Maxar Technologies, the company recently tapped by NASA to supply the first component of a smaller orbiting space station called the Lunar Gateway. In February, Canada became the first country to commit to the Gateway as an international partner. MDA is a leading contender to build Canada’s contribution: a more autonomous, AI-guided version of the arm that currently appears on the back of the $5 bill.
But while the Gateway – like the ISS before it – is expected to grow gradually through international agreements between national space agencies, the real catalysts in the new push toward the moon are the growing ranks of private companies looking to do it for themselves. “As the Earth’s economic sphere grows, people are realizing the moon is an asset,” said Christian Sallaberger, president and CEO of Canadensys Aerospace Corp., a space technology company based in Bolton, Ont., that has seen moon-related projects taking up a growing share of its business.
July 20, 1969: Astronaut Buzz Aldrin stands alongside the U.S. flag after he and Neil Armstrong became the first two people to set foot on the moon. Astronaut Michael Collins orbited in the command module during the mission.Neil A. Armstrong/NASA/The Associated Press
June 15, 1989: Mr. Aldrin holds up a copy of The Globe and Mail from July 21, 1969, which he autographed.Edward Regan/The Globe and Mail
LESSONS LEARNED
Poets and engineers alike have reflected on the enduring allure of the moon. Once a metaphor for the unattainable, it became an ever-present focus in the early days of space flight, as the United States and the Soviet Union vied to be the first to land humans on the lunar surface. So intense was the race that it’s hard to imagine how the first chapter of space exploration would have unfolded had fate not provided Earthlings with such a visible and tantalizing prize.
As the United States’ Apollo program wound down after six manned landings from 1969 to 1972, NASA moved on to the space shuttle and then the ISS. The new theatre of operation was low Earth orbit, and the new paradigm was all about making space routine and accessible to many more individuals from many more countries, including Canada. Over the years, this second chapter of space history had its share of tragedies and setbacks. Yet, its outcomes have included almost two decades of continuous human presence in orbit, along with some key lessons about how the next chapter is likely to unfold.
The first lesson is about the importance of robots. This comes courtesy of the Canadarm 2, which has become indispensable to operations on the ISS. When the arm was still on the drawing board in the 1990s, some were skeptical that it would be of much use after the station was complete. Now, it seems to be used for almost everything, including catching visiting spacecraft. According to MDA, the past three-month period has been among the busiest in the Canadarm’s history.
“We’ve learned a lot of things operating a robot on the station for the past 18 years,” said Gilles Leclerc, director-general of space exploration for the Canadian Space Agency.
Canada’s track record with the arm has set the stage for its contribution to the Lunar Gateway. But the second lesson to come from the space-station era, the growing role of the private sector as an accelerator of space exploration, is having an even larger impact. The trend began in 2006, when NASA, already looking to decommission its fleet of space shuttles after two disastrous accidents, began inviting industry players to take over the job of ferrying supplies to the ISS. This opened the door to new cadre of space service companies, including Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
Using the same blueprint, NASA recently awarded contracts to three companies to carry scientific payloads to the moon in the next two years. One of them, Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic Technology, has also inked an agreement with Canadensys to send some of the Ontario company’s gear to the lunar surface. The developments are a further sign that the envelope of commercial activity in space is expanding and that entrepreneurs are getting serious about developing their lunar strategies.
Hurricane Emily looms behind Canadarm 2 in July, 2005, as photographed by astronaut John Phillips on the International Space Station. After the Apollo missions ended, space science turned to low Earth orbit, where countries such as Canada began to play a larger role.NASA
This artist's rendition of the proposed Lunar Gateway space station shows a Canadarm in orbit around the moon.MDA, Maxar Technologies
DOUBLE VISIONS
Canada’s decision to join the Lunar Gateway project came after months of lobbying from industry as well as from NASA chief administrator Jim Bridenstine. Yet, within weeks of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announcing the commitment, the White House appeared to upend the entire plan by declaring that it wanted American astronauts walking on the lunar surface again by 2024 – the final year of what would be U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term.
The announcement caught even NASA by surprise and it raised questions in Canada about whether the Gateway had effectively been sidelined by politics. Last month, NASA unveiled a retooled moon program to follow through on the Trump directive. Symbolically dubbed Artemis – the twin sister of Apollo in Greek mythology – the plan explicitly includes landing the first woman on the moon as part of its inaugural crew. The news immediately attracted more attention than the Gateway, which is designed to operate for long stretches without any human presence.
Despite this split objective, Mr. Leclerc said the message from NASA is that Canada’s contribution to the Gateway is still needed by its originally planned 2025 delivery date – and sooner if possible. One reason is that it still requires a significant amount of energy to fly straight to the lunar surface and back. In such a mission scenario, even the fuel for the return trip has to be brought down to the landing site and lifted back up again. Apollo missions got around this by sending a combined lander and an orbiter to the moon. For Artemis, the plan includes docking with the Gateway as the transfer point for astronauts en route to a lunar landing.
There are serious questions about whether NASA can make the 2024 deadline for its U.S.-only lunar landing. For one thing, the lander itself has not yet been designed and tested. And it is easy to imagine how budget battles with Congress or a change in administration could delay the plan.
The Gateway also has its detractors, but proponents say that if the overarching goal of the lunar program is establishing a long-term presence beyond low Earth orbit, then an orbiting platform that can serve as a test bed for deep space missions is the way to go. That perception is reinforced by expectations that Europe, Japan and Russia will join the United States and Canada as partners in the Gateway, which would make the project harder to kill.
"History has shown that international collaboration fosters a more persistent activity,” MDA’s Mr. Greenley said.
An artist's concept of a landing craft and its crew on the lunar surface. NASA had originally sought U.S. companies' help to design reusable lunar landing systems, test them by 2024 and get a crew on the moon by 2028, but the Trump administration accelerated that timetable. Now the goal is to land on the moon by 2024.NASA
This rover and lander model, dubbed Heracles, is part of a joint European-Japanese-Canadian effort to send a robotic mission to the moon in the 2020s, scouting for the arrival of astronauts.ESA/ATG Medialab
WHEELS ON THE GROUND
At the same time, businesses that are looking to the moon as an economic opportunity are not waiting for the Gateway to be built and are not thinking only of lunar orbit. For example, next month Canadensys will begin road-testing a wheel designed for a lunar rover. The test involves hours of rolling the wheel on a turntable covered with simulated lunar soil. Similar projects are under way by aerospace companies looking to develop moon-ready hardware, including cameras, sensors and drills.
To boost Canada’s presence in the expanding moon market and its technological spinoffs, this year’s federal budget included a $150-million injection dubbed the Lunar Exploration Accelerator Program (LEAP). In the first stage of the program, Mr. Leclerc said that, as of last month, the space agency had received more than a hundred pitches from various companies and collaborations, of which a smaller number will be invited to submit formal proposals.
Scientists, too, are anticipating new opportunities for lunar exploration. While the moon is not Mars, it is full of mysteries that have lingered since the Apollo era. Over the years, researchers have developed long lists of possible landing sites they would like to explore – with both robotic and manned spacecraft. The missions would combine two research goals: studying the moon’s long-preserved geologic record for clues to the deep history of Earth and the rest of the solar system; and sussing out resources that could be valuable to an expanding lunar community, including ice near the moon’s poles and gases such as hydrogen and oxygen, which could be trapped in minerals and used for energy and life support.
This is why next month’s CanMoon simulation in Lanzarote, run jointly by Western and the University of Winnipeg, was designed with a specific mission opportunity in mind. That mission, known as Heracles, would be a combined European, Japanese and Canadian effort to put a small lander with a rover on the moon in the coming decade, once the Gateway is in place.
For Cassandra Marion, a PhD student at Western who is managing the simulation, the exercise is not just about developing technologies and procedures, but above all about producing a cohort of Canadian-trained scientists who are qualified to run lunar missions.
Whether those missions are done in partnership with other countries or as private ventures, she said, “we’ll have people to donate to the cause."
WHERE TO LAND ON THE MOON
All six Apollo landing sites are on the side of the
moon that faces Earth and they are relatively
close to the moon’s equator. The six additional
locations shown are among those identified as
potential landing sites for future missions. They
reflect a more diverse set of lunar
landforms, where mission planners are hoping
to discover resources and answer questions
about the moon’s past.
THEN …
Apollo landing sites on the near side
of the moon
Apollo 15
Apollo 17
Apollo 11
Apollo 12 & 14
Apollo 16
… AND NOW
Shown are six potential landing sites
NEAR SIDE
2
3
1
4
Site sizes are schematic
1
Mare Orientale (95°W, 20°S)
Only partly visible from Earth, this is the
youngest of the moon’s large impact basins.
Pinning down its age would shed light on a key
turning point in lunar history.
Aristarchus plateau (50°W, 25°N)
Rising two kilometres above the surrounding
plains, the plateau has a complex geology, and
its rocks are thought to be rich in oxygen.
Rima Bode (3.5°W, 12°N)
Black mineral deposits at this site are rich in
titanium and may act as a trap for hydrogen
atoms streaming away from the sun.
Shackleton crater (0.0°E, 89.9°S)
Because it is nearly at the moon’s south pole,
sunlight never touches some parts of this
crater. Orbital missions have detected ice in
shadowed areas.
2
3
4
FAR SIDE
5
6
5
Moscoviense basin (147°E, 26°N)
This deep impact feature exposes the ancient
crust on the moon’s far side. It includes a series
of unusual swirls on the basin floor that may be
due to a magnetic anomaly.
Schrodinger basin (135°E, 75°S)
Lava deposits in this large impact crater offer
rare evidence that the moon remained
volcanically active for billions of years after
its formation.
6
CARRIE COCKBURN / THE GLOBE AND MAIL,
BLENDER CONSULTATION: OWEN HELLUM,
SOURCES: PLANETPIXELEMPORIUM.COM; BBC
WHERE TO LAND ON THE MOON
All six Apollo landing sites are on the side of the moon
that faces Earth and they are relatively close to the moon’s
equator. The six additional locations shown are among
those identified as potential landing sites for future
missions. They reflect a more diverse set of lunar
landforms, where mission planners are hoping to discover
resources and answer questions about the moon’s past.
THEN …
Apollo landing sites on the near side of the moon
Apollo 15
Apollo 17
Apollo 11
Apollo 12 & 14
Apollo 16
… AND NOW
Shown are six potential landing sites
NEAR SIDE
2
3
1
4
Site sizes are schematic
1
Mare Orientale (95°W, 20°S)
Only partly visible from Earth, this is the youngest of the
moon’s large impact basins. Pinning down its age would
shed light on a key turning point in lunar history.
Aristarchus plateau (50°W, 25°N)
Rising two kilometres above the surrounding plains, the
plateau has a complex geology, and its rocks are thought
to be rich in oxygen.
Rima Bode (3.5°W, 12°N)
Black mineral deposits at this site are rich in titanium and
may act as a trap for hydrogen atoms streaming away
from the sun.
Shackleton crater (0.0°E, 89.9°S)
Because it is nearly at the moon’s south pole, sunlight
never touches some parts of this crater. Orbital missions
have detected ice in shadowed areas.
2
3
4
FAR SIDE
5
6
5
Moscoviense basin (147°E, 26°N)
This deep impact feature exposes the ancient crust on the
moon’s far side. It includes a series of unusual swirls on
the basin floor that may be due to a magnetic anomaly.
Schrodinger basin (135°E, 75°S)
Lava deposits in this large impact crater offer rare
evidence that the moon remained volcanically active for
billions of years after its formation.
6
CARRIE COCKBURN / THE GLOBE AND MAIL,
BLENDER CONSULTATION: OWEN HELLUM,
SOURCES: PLANETPIXELEMPORIUM.COM; BBC
WHERE TO LAND ON THE MOON
THEN …
Apollo landing
sites on the
near side of
the moon
All six Apollo landing sites are on
the side of the moon that faces
Earth and they are relatively close
to the moon’s equator. The six
additional locations shown are
among those identified as potential
landing sites for future missions.
They reflect a more diverse set of
lunar landforms, where mission
planners are hoping to discover
resources and answer questions
about the moon’s past.
Apollo 15
Apollo 17
Apollo 11
Apollo 12 & 14
Apollo 16
… AND NOW
Shown are six potential landing sites
FAR SIDE
NEAR SIDE
FAR SIDE
5
2
3
1
6
4
Site sizes are schematic
1
4
Mare Orientale (95°W, 20°S)
Only partly visible from Earth, this is the
youngest of the moon’s large impact basins.
Pinning down its age would shed light on a
key turning point in lunar history.
Aristarchus plateau (50°W, 25°N)
Rising two kilometres above the surrounding
plains, the plateau has a complex geology,
and its rocks are thought to be rich in
oxygen.
Rima Bode (3.5°W, 12°N)
Black mineral deposits at this site are rich in
titanium and may act as a trap for hydrogen
atoms streaming away from the sun.
Shackleton crater (0.0°E, 89.9°S)
Because it is nearly at the moon’s south pole,
sunlight never touches some parts of this
crater. Orbital missions have detected ice in
shadowed areas.
Moscoviense basin (147°E, 26°N)
This deep impact feature exposes the ancient
crust on the moon’s far side. It includes a
series of unusual swirls on the basin floor
that may be due to a magnetic anomaly.
Schrodinger basin (135°E, 75°S)
Lava deposits in this large impact crater offer
rare evidence that the moon remained
volcanically active for billions of years
after its formation.
2
5
3
6
CARRIE COCKBURN / THE GLOBE AND MAIL,
BLENDER CONSULTATION: OWEN HELLUM,
SOURCES: PLANETPIXELEMPORIUM.COM; BBC
Houston, 1969: Owen Maynard, middle, a Canadian engineer who oversaw development of the lunar module, sits in the Spacecraft Analysis (SPAN) room at the Mission Control Center during the flight of Apollo 11. According to Canadian space historian Chris Gainor, Mr. Maynard chose to sleep through Neil Armstrong’s famous first step on the moon in order to be well-rested for the launch of the lunar module’s ascent stage, which would begin the journey home for Mr. Armstrong and his crewmate, Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin. Here, Mr. Maynard is flanked by industry contractors Thomas J. Kelly of Grumman, left, and Dale Myers of North American Rockwell, right.NASA
Canada’s lunar legacy
The Apollo program was an unprecedented U.S.
achievement that engaged scientists and engi-
neers from around the world. Among them
were many Canadians, including some who
played key roles in shaping the effort to land
humans on the moon.
Jim Chamberlin
Born in Kamploops, B.C., he was chief of technical
design for the Avro Arrow, Canada’s trailblazing
interceptor jet. When the Arrow was cancelled in
1959, he was snapped up by NASA along with more
than a dozen Avro engineers. Within NASA, he was
a key supporter of the “lunar orbit rendezvous”
approach to landing on the moon, which required
the development of a lunar module.
Owen Maynard
A Sarnia, Ont., native, he was another former Avro
engineer who arrived at NASA and soon found
himself playing a leading role in the nascent U.S.
space program. After overseeing the development
of the lunar module, he headed up Apollo’s
systems engineering division, which was tasked
with making sure all of the various components of
the complex system were able to work together
Lunar module
Height:
6.7 metres
Diameter:
9.4 metres
Radar
antenna
S-Band
antenna
RCS
thrust
nozzle
Entrance
hatch
Landing
gear
Descent
stage
Landing
pad
Héroux Machine Parts Limited: Now called
Héroux-Devtek, the Longueuil, Que., company special-
izes in aircraft landing gear. It built the legs on the
lunar module’s descent stage, six sets of which remain-
on the moon to this day.
Lunar orbit rendezvous
Each Apollo mission involved a single launch
that put both a command module and lunar
module in Earth orbit along with a three-man
crew (A). The modules travelled together on a
three-day flight to the moon (B). Once in orbit
around the moon, the lunar module separated
to bring two crewmembers down to the surface
while one stayed behind in the command
module (C) . Only the crew portion of the com-
mand module returned to Earth at the end of
the journey.
Trajectory
A
C
B
Earth
Moon
Rendezvous
After a 385,000-km voyage,
Command Service Module
rotates and docks with the
Lunar Module
4
Saturn V rocket
THIRD STAGE
Single J-2 engine boosts
craft into Earth orbit, from
where Trans Lunar Injection
(TLI) burn increases
spacecraft’s velocity close
to Earth’s escape velocity
of 40,320 km/h
SECOND STAGE
Five J-2 engines burn for
six minutes, lifting craft to
176km at 25,182 km/h.
Fuel: Liquid hydrogen,
liquid oxygen
FIRST STAGE
Five F-1 engines, powered
by RP-1 (refined kerosene)
and liquid oxygen, lift
Apollo spacecraft to
height of 67.6 km in just
168 seconds
IVAN SEMENIUK, murat yükselir
and john sopinski/the globe
and mail, sources: nasa;
natIonal air and space
museum; graphic news
The Apollo program was an unprecedented U.S.
achievement that engaged scientists and engineers
from around the world. Among them were many Cana-
dians, including some who played key roles in shaping
the effort to land humans on the moon.
Jim Chamberlin
Born in Kamploops, B.C., he was chief of technical design for
the Avro Arrow, Canada’s trailblazing interceptor jet. When
the Arrow was cancelled in 1959, he was snapped up by
NASA along with more than a dozen Avro engineers. Within
NASA, he was a key supporter of the “lunar orbit rendez-
vous” approach to landing on the moon, which required the
development of a lunar module.
Owen Maynard
A Sarnia, Ont., native, he was another former Avro engineer
who arrived at NASA and soon found himself playing a lead-
ing role in the nascent U.S. space program. After overseeing
the development of the lunar module, he headed up Apollo’s
systems engineering division, which was tasked with making
sure all of the various components of the complex system
were able to work together
Lunar module
Height:
6.7 metres
Diameter:
9.4 metres
Radar
antenna
S-Band
antenna
RCS
thrust
nozzle
Entrance
hatch
Landing
gear
Descent
stage
Landing
pad
Héroux Machine Parts Limited: Now called
Héroux-Devtek, the Longueuil, Que., company special-
izes in aircraft landing gear. It built the legs on the lunar
module’s descent stage, six sets of which remain on
the moon to this day.
Lunar orbit rendezvous
Each Apollo mission involved a single launch that put
both a command module and lunar module in Earth
orbit along with a three-man crew (A). The modules
travelled together on a three-day flight to the moon (B).
Once in orbit around the moon, the lunar module sepa-
rated to bring two crewmembers down to the surface
while one stayed behind in the command module (C) .
Only the crew portion of the command module returned
to Earth at the end of the journey.
Trajectory
A
C
B
Earth
Moon
Rendezvous
After a 385,000-km voyage,
Command Service Module rotates
and docks with Lunar Module
4
Saturn V rocket
THIRD STAGE
Single J-2 engine boosts
craft into Earth orbit, from
where Trans Lunar Injection
(TLI) burn increases spacecraft’s
velocity close to Earth’s
escape velocity of 40,320 km/h
SECOND STAGE
Five J-2 engines burn for
six minutes, lifting craft to
176km at 25,182 km/h.
Fuel: Liquid hydrogen,
liquid oxygen
FIRST STAGE
Five F-1 engines, powered
by RP-1 (refined kerosene)
and liquid oxygen, lift Apollo
spacecraft to height of
67.6 km in just 168 seconds
IVAN SEMENIUK, murat yükselir
and john sopinski/the globe
and mail, sources: nasa;
natIonal air and space
museum; graphic news
The Apollo program was an unprecedented U.S. achievement that engaged scientists and engi-
neers from around the world. Among them were many Canadians, including some who played
key roles in shaping the effort to land humans on the moon.
Jim Chamberlin
Owen Maynard
Born in Kamploops,
B.C., he was chief of
technical design for the
Avro Arrow, Canada’s
trailblazing interceptor
jet. When the Arrow
was cancelled in 1959,
he was snapped up by
NASA along with more
than a dozen Avro
engineers. Within
NASA, he was a key
supporter of the “lunar
orbit rendezvous”
approach
to landing on the moon,
which required the
development of a lunar
module.
A Sarnia, Ont., native, he
was another former Avro
engineer who arrived at
NASA and soon found
himself playing a leading
role in the nascent U.S.
space program. After
overseeing the develop
ment of the lunar
module, he headed up
Apollo’s systems engi-
neering division, which
was tasked with making
sure all of the various
components of the
complex system were
able to work together
Radar
antenna
S-Band
antenna
Ascent
stage
RCS
thrust
nozzle
Entrance
hatch
Landing
gear
Lunar module
Height:
6.7 metres
Descent
stage
Diameter:
9.4 metres
Weight (Earth launch):
14,061 kilograms
Landing
pad
Héroux Machine Parts Limited: Now called Héroux-Devtek, the Longueuil, Que., company special-
izes in aircraft landing gear. It built the legs on the lunar module’s descent stage, six sets of which
remain on the moon to this day.
Lunar orbit rendezvous
Each Apollo mission involved a single launch that put both a command module and lunar
module in Earth orbit along with a three-man crew (A). The modules travelled together on a
three-day flight to the moon (B). Once in orbit around the moon, the lunar module separated
to bring two crewmembers down to the surface while one stayed behind in the command
module (C) . Only the crew portion of the command module returned to Earth at the end of
the journey.
A
C
B
Trajectory
Earth
Moon
Rendezvous
After a 385,000-km voyage,
Command Service Module rotates
and docks with Lunar Module
4
Saturn V rocket
THIRD STAGE
Single J-2 engine boosts craft into
Earth orbit, from where Trans Lunar
Injection (TLI) burn increases
spacecraft’s velocity close to Earth’s
escape velocity of 40,320 km/h
SECOND STAGE
Five J-2 engines burn for six minutes,
lifting craft to 176km at 25,182 km/h.
Fuel: Liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen
FIRST STAGE
Five F-1 engines, powered by RP-1
(refined kerosene) and liquid oxygen,
lift Apollo spacecraft to height of
67.6 km in just 168 seconds
IVAN SEMENIUK, murat yükselir
and john sopinski/the globe and mail
sources: nasa; natIonal air and space
museum; graphic news
Editor’s note: A previous version of this story stated that India's first lunar lander was launched in June.
Join science reporter Ivan Semeniuk and a panel of experts for a live discussion about Canada’s future on the Moon, this coming Monday at 7 p.m. (ET) at The Globe and Mail Centre in Toronto (free for subscribers). Register at tgam.ca/experiences.
Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.