Lunar Missions Database (MoonDB)

76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 MoonDB: A Data-Driven Investigation of Past, Present, and Future Lunar Missions for Sustainable Exploration Paolo Guardabasso1, * and Stéphanie Lizy-Destrez2 1ARCA Dynamics, Italy 2ISAE-SUPAERO University of Toulouse, France *Corresponding author Email: [email protected] Abstract The history of lunar exploration is full of remarkable achievements and technological marvels, but it has often prioritized progress over long-term sustainability. In the early decades of space exploration, little thought was given to the fate of artificial objects left in orbit or on the lunar surface. As a result, spacecraft, launcher parts and fragments remain within the Earth-Moon system or in heliocentric orbits. Some are well-documented, while others remain largely untracked, posing potential risks to future cislunar missions. Interest in the Moon has grown, with plans to establish a permanent human presence in lunar orbit and on its surface. As these activities approach, understanding our past is essential: first, to assess the existing environment and the risks posed by unidentified objects; second, to ensure that future exploration is conducted more sustainably. The Lunar Missions Database (MoonDB) was created as a public resource to catalog all historical lunar missions and support research on sustainability. Built from NASA historical data and various archival sources, MoonDB serves as a foundation for analyzing past lunar exploration efforts and understanding their long-term impact. This paper first provides a statistical overview of these missions, highlighting key trends and patterns in lunar exploration. It then shifts focus to the present, examining the artificial objects still in orbit, particularly those that pose the greatest risks. Many of these spacecraft are effectively unobservable, and their locations can only be reconstructed by cross-referencing past records with tracking data. The paper also explores the potential applications of integrating MoonDB with other object databases and mission recording systems, improving how we track and analyze these relics. Finally, looking toward the future, the discussion addresses the missions planned for the coming years and their approach to sustainability. Then, the need for a more structured approach to tracking and managing space objects. One proposed solution is the establishment of a comprehensive registration system for lunar and orbital debris, ensuring that future missions have access to reliable historical data. As humanity enters a new era of lunar exploration, planning for a permanent presence and expanded scientific and industrial activities, such measures will be essential for mitigating risks and ensuring a sustainable presence beyond Earth. The Lunar Mission Database serves as a crucial step in this direction. Understanding the past is necessary to navigate the future with greater awareness and responsibility, and make informed decisions that will shape the next chapter of space exploration. Keywords: Lunar exploration, Object database, Space Domain Awareness. Acronyms Ascent vehicle (ASC), Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS), China National Space Administration (CNSA), European Space Agency (ESA), Hopper (HOP), Impactor (IMP), Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), In Situ Resources Utilisation (ISRU), Launcher stage (LAU), Lander (LND), Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), Lunar Missions Database (MoonDB), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive (NSSDCA), Orbiter (ORB), Rover (ROV), Return vehicle (RTN), Trans-lunar Injection (TLI). 1. Introduction For several years now, we have been witnessing a ”lunar renaissance,” with intensifying traffic towards our only natural satellite. The first race to the Moon 60 IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 1 of 10 76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. years ago saw the participation of two superpowers with virtually unlimited national budgets, tight schedules, and objectives in a highly competitive and secretive environment. Nowadays, we are seeing a new type of race with numerous diversified actors, both institutional agencies and private companies, from an increasing number of countries. There are already several examples of collaboration between entities, such as landers hosting someone else’s rover. This new environment has the incredible potential for the democratisation of lunar exploration, with the drawback being that regulation may follow a similar path as low Earth orbit, bringing regulatory uncertainty. 1.1 A lunar spacecraft database Information on past and current spacecraft operating in cislunar space is sparse and often difficult to retrieve. Additionally, observation and tracking capabilities in cislunar space are limited, further complicating the picture. Within the scope of the work ”Study of Cislunar Space Dynamics and Environment for Orbital Debris Mitigation” by the author of the present work [1], the Lunar Missions Database (MoonDB) was created [2]. First published in 2023, it is a publicly available database of past and present missions targeting the Moon as their main objective. Since its publication, the database has been downloaded more than 600 times. It was designed to provide a better understanding of the rationale behind missions, focusing on their final results, current locations, funding agencies, and nations. Particular attention has also been given to the lunar surface, where landing sites have been identified. A version 2.0 of the database will be available since September 2025. The new version introduces several improvements over the previous version, including structural changes, a new referencing system, and more specific information on the verification of surface locations. The spacecraft list has also been updated through July 2025. 1.2 Contents of the paper The present paper first discusses the creation of version 2.0 of the MoonDB, highlighting the rationale behind the changes it introduces. Then, the database is employed to create an updated statistical analysis (with respect to the original work [1]), the results of which are discussed. Moreover, the subject of long-term sustainability of lunar missions is introduced, discussing current plans for future missions and challenges of cislunar space travel. Finally, this work presents an overview of different initiatives that share the objective to assist the regulation of future missions. 2. The MoonDB The MoonDB has been compiled originally from data collected by NASA in the Master Catalogue of the NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive (NSSDCA) [3]. Some historical insights, especially on early missions, are provided by Siddiqi (2018) [4]. A list of tentative USSR missions has been integrated [5]. The table of artificial objects on the Moon has been used to detail the surface environment. Opensource projects (e.g., Johnathan McDowell’s DeepCat [6]) served as inspiration and supplementary material. Following a list provided by the NSSDCA, a certain number of tentative USSR missions were also added to the database [5]. In these cases, most spacecraft were destroyed due to a launch failure and were not disclosed to the public: the available information results from an investigation. Additionally, the MoonDB contains details on the current lunar surface environment, mainly taken from the Table of Anthropogenic Impacts and Spacecraft on the Moon by Williams (2025) [6]. Other open-source projects provided key information when lacking from official sources, and proved a valid inspiration for this work. The main one is the Deep Space Catalog by McDowell (2023) [7], a collection of mission data divided in two main tables: spacecraft information and mission phases information. An additional table is provided to provide information on references. Differently from the MoonDB, the Deep Space Catalogue contains all objects that travelled beyond the Earth. It focuses on the full trajectory of each object, providing epochs and the corresponding celestial body and trajectory types (orbit, fly-by, etc.), while MoonDB focuses specifically on objects’ end of life and disposal. The Deep pace Catalog also contains information about objects’ platform data, such as size and shape; these information, which have been included in previous versions of the MoonDB, are not present in the version 2.0 of the MoonDB discussed in the present work. Potential future work would allow the cross-checking between the MoonDB and the Deep Space Catalog. Nevertheless, the catalog appears to have been discontinued. IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 2 of 10 76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. Operator media outlets and news websites were consulted by the authors when official data were missing. Newer missions are often poorly documented, with scattered sources that tend to be promotional due to their commercial nature. 2.1 Methodology The MoonDB database is based on the following assumptions: • A spacecraft is a space object with a specific type (robotic orbiter, robotic lander, crew orbiter, etc.). • A mission (e.g., Apollo 13) can include one or more spacecraft. • The database records each spacecraft’s last known status (e.g., impacted on the surface) when available. • Multi-stage vehicles are separated into distinct spacecraft, especially if they have different final objectives and locations. Exclusions from the database, in line with its focus on the cislunar environment, are: • Spacecraft that only performed lunar flybys for gravity assists or orbit-raising before proceeding to other targets. • Objects from lunar programs that were intentionally directed away from the Moon. • Missions cancelled before launch. • Spacecraft that pass through cislunar space en route to other destinations. The MoonDB has several fields containing the following information: •Identification: spacecraft/object name, NASA identifier, mission name, program, parent spacecraft (if applicable), COSPAR ID. •Launch and operations: launch date, operators (agency or company), responsible nation. •Design and objectives: spacecraft bus type, intended target (Moon orbit, flyby, etc.), mission outcome (success, failure, etc.). •Lunar contact: epoch of surface contact, type of contact (landing, crash, impact, etc.), coordinates, location precision. •Earth contact: epoch and nature (re-entry, landing, etc.). •Final status: final location (celestial body/area) and current status. 2.1.1 Mission result Each spacecraft entry gets assigned a mission result, similarly to what is done in the NSSDCA Master Catalog. It can be between “failure”, “success”, “partial success”, “active”, “unproven” and “unknown”. The meaning of each result is described here below. •Failure: the mission was not accomplished, and the spacecraft could not reach any relevant scientific objective. •Partial failure: the primary mission was not accomplished, but some relevant results or milestones were stil reached. •Success: the primary mission objectives were accomplished, and the mission was completed. •Active: this category includes all missions that, as of July 2025, are considered active1. •Unproven: another spacecraft failed, jeopardising the mission and preventing the object from being operated. •Unknown: in case it was not possible to retrieve enough information to state a mission result. The only case at the current version is represented by the Lunar Ice Cube spacecraft, deployed during the Artemis 1 mission [3]. 2.1.2 Spacecraft types Depending on their primary function, spacecraft are categorised through a “type” field. • Impactor (IMP): designed to impact the surface, penetrate the first regolith layers, and perform scientific measurements. • Orbiter (ORB): includes all spacecraft that operate in orbit. Satellites are used for various tasks, i.e. scientific measurements, communication, and navigation. Service modules support crewed modules. Crew capsules are also considered orbiters. • Lander (LND): provides access to the lunar surface (robotic experiments, rovers, crew). It can be equipped to collect surface samples and load them on an ascent stage. It can serve as a communication relay for surface assets. • Rover (ROV): allows mobility on the surface for 1This information it not always easy to retrieve from public sources, e.g. in the case for China National Space Administration (CNSA) spacecraft, such as the Chang’e 4 lander or the Queqiao orbiter IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 3 of 10 76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. robotic exploration missions or crew. • Ascent vehicle (ASC): able to store collected samples or host crews and bring them back to lunar orbit, eventually re-entering Earth’s atmosphere and performing a soft landing. It can host crews in lunar surface missions during descents on robotic landers. • Return vehicle (RTN): receives crew or a sample box in lunar orbit (brought by an ascent stage), re-enters Earth’s atmosphere, and performs a soft landing. • Hopper (HOP): a hopper, capable of moving on the Lunar surface performing short bounces or ”hops”. • Launcher stage (LAU): provide the thrust for Trans-lunar Injection (TLI) manoeuvres and sometimes serve as an impactor for scientific research. These do not include lower stages of the launcher (usually destroyed in the atmosphere after launch). Missions that experienced a launcher failure do not have separate launcher stages objects. Spacecraft can be robotic (R) or crewed (C), except for impactors (R-IMP) and launcher stages (R-LAU). When crewed vehicles were used for testing and technology demonstration missions without a crew, this is indicated with “(U)” for “uncrewed”. 2.2 Major changes in version 2.0 As mentioned earlier, the new version has been updated with the latest missions to the Moon since 2022. In addition, the 2022 European Service Module that flew on the Orion capsule’s maiden flight has been included. In terms of database structure, version 2.0 introduces several changes, summarised as follows: •Reference management: reference keys have been added to several existing columns (launch epoch, operators, target, result, landing epoch and location, current status). •Enhanced surface contact information: lunar surface contacts have been detailed with a new “type” key, indicating whether a mission performed a soft landing, an impact as an objective, a disposal, or an unintentional/crash landing. In addition, the precision of location coordinates has been specified, distinguishing between approximate values, observations by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission, or confirmation through telemetry. For Earth, a similar but less detailed section has been added, including the type of contact (reentry burn, soft landing, or launch failure/explosion) and the epoch. •End of mission overhaul: the DISPOSAL_STRATEGY key was considered misleading and has been replaced by the new contact information described above. Similarly, the LAST_KNOWN_STATUS_EPOCH key has been superseded by the lunar or Earth contact sections. •Out-of-scope keys: some keys have been removed because they were deemed outside the scope of the database. These include launcher and launch site information, which users can retrieve independently and which are not required for analyses within the MoonDB. •Spacecraft shape, mass, and power: since available data were often imprecise or conflicting across references, these fields have been temporarily removed. Consolidation of this information is left for future work. To accommodate the new reference management, a dedicated list of references is now provided together with the database. 3. Analysis of lunar missions This section first discusses lunar spacecraft trends in time (in Section 3.1), and then provides some ”snapshots” of the current situation on the lunar surface and in orbit (in Section 3.2). 3.1 Trends in lunar missions Lunar mission history can be divided in two distinct eras: •First phase (1958 - 1976): The first phase of lunar exploration corresponds to the ”space race” between two superpowers, the USSR and the USA. Several initial failures occurred (mostly launch fails) and the mission complexity increasing as programs progressed. All came to a halt in 1972 for the US with the Apollo 17 mission, and in 1976 for the USSR with Luna 24. •Second phase (1990 - Present): Slowly started in 1990 by Japan, the second phase accelerated in the 2000s and 2010s. Several nations joined IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 4 of 10 76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. in (often in collaboration), through institutions and private companies alike. This phase saw the emergence of China as key player. Several landing attempts have recently failed. Figure 1 shows the cumulative number of lunar spacecraft since 1958, colored following different legends. In Figures 1a and 1b, objects are grouped by nation, showing the very different nature of the two exploration phases. When coloring by mission result as in Figures 1c and 1d it can be seen for example how failure remains a constant presence in lunar exploration. Finally, Figures 1e and 1f show the different spacecraft types that have been employed (see Section 2.1.2 for a description of these types). A focused analysis on spacecraft disposal can be done using the MoonDB. Figure 2 reports the trend of disposed spacecraft, together with inactive orbital objects operational objects (both orbital and on the lunar surface). This graphic shows that a large proportion of spacecraft that was targeted at the Moon was eventually disposed of. Nevertheless, a fraction remains of objects in orbit that could pose a future risk to human assets. Concerning the lunar surface, the type of surface interaction can be further detailed, including whether it landed, crashed, or if the impact was intentional (e.g., for disposal) or due to decay, as shown in Figure 3a. Initially, impact was the primary form of disposal (as a mission objective), later followed by soft landings (some of which resulted in crashes). Subsequently, leaving spacecraft in lunar orbit to decay and eventually impact the surface became common practice during the ”space race”. Intentional impact solely for disposal purposes was typically applied to upper stages, but it remained the main form of direct disposal. Similarly, spacecraft that ended their missions on Earth can be categorized as re-entries, soft landings, or launch failure explosions (see Figure 3b). 3.2 Current status The MoonDB contains detailed information on objects currently on the lunar surface, enabling the creation of maps with varied color and symbol codings to highlight different insights. These maps form an atlas of human artifacts on the Moon and can be used, for instance, to plan disposal trajectories that minimize the risk of damage to human assets or archaeological sites. When combined with maps of scientifically, industrially, or socially significant points and areas, they can support the definition of a “disposal zone” [1]. Figures 4a to 4c show all known locations of human artifacts on the lunar surface. They represent, respectively, the mission result, nation and the verification method for each location. The confidence level of each type is also resumed in Table 1. The database also records the last known location of orbiting objects. Depending on the case, a celestial body (e.g., Moon), a region (e.g., Earth-Moon), or a specific point (e.g., Sun-Earth libration point) is assigned. These entries include only objects with a lunar objective that are currently in orbit, either after their end of life or as active spacecraft. These results are shown in Figure 5. 4. Towards sustainable exploration Cislunar operations present a set of unique challenges that distinguish them from traditional Earth-orbit activities. Treating debris mitigation in cislunar space as analogous to low Earth orbit oversimplifies the problem: the environment is largely uncharted, governed by complex and chaotic dynamics, and natural sinks such as atmospheric drag are absent, making disposal of defunct spacecraft more difficult and hazardous for both surface and orbital assets. Certain regions of interest, including low lunar orbits and libration point orbits, can become congested despite the overall vastness of cislunar space, creating local hotspots of risk. Fragmentation events further complicate the situation, spreading debris unpredictably due to these chaotic dynamics. Surveillance and space situational awareness in cislunar space are currently limited, and no protected zones or traffic management regulations exist to mitigate collisions. The increasing pace of international and commercial lunar activities will amplify these risks unless proactive mitigation strategies are implemented. Effective management of cislunar traffic and debris is therefore critical to ensure safe and sustainable exploration and utilization of the Moon and its surrounding environment. 4.1 Future missions Current trends show an interest towards the lunar South Pole exploration, as well as the exploitation of EarthMoon combined orbital dynamics to leverage low-cost trajectories. IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 5 of 10 76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 Launch year 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Object Count USA USSR (a) By country (1957-1980). 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Launch year 0 20 40 60 80 Object Count Japan USA Europe China India Israel South Korea Italy United Arab Emirates Russia Mexico Pakistan (b) By country (1990-2025). 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 Launch year 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Object Count Unproven Partial failure Success Failure (c) By mission result (1957-1980). 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Launch year 0 20 40 60 80 Object Count Failure Success Active Unproven Unknown Partial failure (d) By mission result (1990-2025). 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 Launch year 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Object Count R-ORB R-IMP R-LAU R-LND C-ORB-U C-ORB R-ROV R-ASC C-ASC C-ROV (e) By type of spacecraft (1957-1980). 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Launch year 0 20 40 60 80 Object Count R-ORB R-LAU R-IMP R-LND R-ROV R-RTN R-ASC C-ORB-U R-HOP (f) By type of spacecraft (1990-2025). Figure 1: Cumulative number of lunar spacecraft for each year from 1958 to 2025, By nation, mission result and spacecraft type. Counts include launch-related failures. IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 6 of 10 76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. Table 1: Spacecraft lunar surface contact event type versus confirmation source. Approximate Imaged (LRO) Telemetry Unknown Total Soft landing 2 42 44 Crash landing 9 8 17 Impact (decay) 1 1 16 18 Impact (disposal) 15 4 2 21 Impact (objective) 2 9 2 13 Impact (uncontrolled) 1 1 Total 30 64 2 18 114 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year 0 50 100 150 200 Object Count Operational (surface) Operational (orbit) Inactive (orbit) Disposed Figure 2: History of object status. Major players will include: •NASA: Artemis missions will bring humans to lunar orbit and surface, followed by the assembly of Gateway. Support will be provided to SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s Blue Moon. •ESA: Will provide Gateway modules, robotic landers (Argonaut), communication satellite networks (Pathfinder), and scientific missions (LUMIO). •Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS): Several robotic missions are planned by Intuitive Machines, Firefly Aerospace, and Astrobotic Technology. •CNSA: Will continue the successful Chang’e program with increasing complexity toward the International Lunar Research Station. •Roscosmos: Russia’s lunar exploration program is expected to continue with robotic missions and crewed mission tests, aiming for the International Lunar Research Station with CNSA in the 2030s. •Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO): India will continue the Chandrayaan program, including a sample return mission. A number of smaller players will also participate, often as secondary payloads on primary missions. 4.2 Establishment of lunar registry In recent years, some initiatives have arised that address the problem of lunar access and advocate for its regulation. Three major examples are: •Lunar Ledger (Open Lunar Foundation) [10]: Centralizes and publicly shares data on lunar objects and mission activities (completed, ongoing, and planned). Since 2022, it integrates contributions from governments, commercial entities, academia, and civil society to enhance coordination and reduce operational risks. •Lunar Resources Registry [11]: Provides a governance and mapping platform showing human activity on the Moon, focusing on surface exploration planning, such as In Situ Resources Utilisation (ISRU). •For All Moonkind, Moon Registry [12]: A free digital registry of lunar heritage and historic landing sites, created by an international nonprofit to preserve human heritage on the Moon. Collaborates with the UN and advocates for protective rules at historic sites. Sustainability of cislunar exploration means enabling ongoing space activity without creating hazards that compromise future missions. Systematic disIAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 7 of 10 76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year 0 20 40 60 80 100 Object Count Impact (uncontrolled) Impact (decay) Impact (disposal) Impact (objective) Crash landing Soft landing (a) History of objects disposed on the Moon. 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Object Count Soft landing Destroyed (re-entry) Destroyed (launch) (b) History of objects disposed on Earth. Figure 3: Overview of disposed lunar spacecraft. posal solutions and preventative measures are essential to avoid creating a hostile environment for subsequent operations. Currently, no comprehensive catalogue exists for updated spacecraft data and state beyond near-Earth orbits; in the event of a lost spacecraft, only a complete register of lunar objects would allow acting quickly. An enhanced MoonDB could serve as the foundation for such a registry, supporting safer and more sustainable cislunar operations. 5. Conclusions The MoonDB represents an example of data collection and democratisation for the improvement of human operations in space. Such endeavours allow to invite coopeeration and self-reflection on how impactful our activities, as a species, can be on a pristine environment such as the lunar one. Several developments are possible for the MoonDB. The inclusion criteria could be expanded by adopting a geometrical definition of cislunar space rather than a historical or target-based one, encompassing objects in high Earth orbits or other trajectories interacting with the Earth-Moon system. More detailed information on each spacecraft could be incorporated, including mass, shape, cross-sectional area, and identification of CubeSat missions. The database could also include comprehensive End of Mission details, specifying why, how, and when a mission was terminated, providing insights into common causes of lunar mission failures and the distribution of spacecraft lifetimes. Additionally, the trajectories of orbiting spacecraft could be detailed with propagated orbits and quantified uncertainties, aiming to identify the current locations of objects. Acknowledgements The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the Space Advanced Concepts Laboratory (SaCLaB) at ISAE-SUPAERO, University of Toulouse (France), in supporting the author’s participation in the conference. References [1] P. Guardabasso, “Study of cislunar space dynamics and environment for orbital debris mitigation”, Ph.D. dissertation, ISAE-SUPAERO University of Toulouse, Jun. 30, 2023. [2] P. Guardabasso and S. Lizy-Destrez, Lunar mission database (MoonDB), Sep. 1, 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7848350 [3] NASA. “Nasa space science data coordinated archive”, Accessed: Sep. 1, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [4] A. A. Siddiqi, Beyond Earth: a Chronicle of Deep Space Exploration, 1958-2016 (NASA SP 2018-4041), Second edition. Washington D.C., USA: NASA Office of Communications, 2018. [5] NASA. “Tentatively identified missions and launch failures”, NSSDC, Accessed: Sep. 1, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://nssdc. gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/tent_launch. html [6] D. R. Williams. “Table of anthropogenic impacts and spacecraft on the moon”, NASA, Accessed: Sep. 1, 2025. [Online]. Available: https : / / nssdc . gsfc . nasa . gov / planetary / lunar / lunar _ artifact _ impacts.html IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 8 of 10 76th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2025 – Sydney, Australia Copyright 2025 by International Astronautical Federation (IAF). All rights reserved. 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Longitude [ ◦ ] 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 Latitude [ ◦ ] Mission result Event type Active Failure Partial failure Success Crash landing Impact (decay) Impact (disposal) Impact (objective) Impact (uncontrolled) Soft landing Crash landing Impact (decay) Impact (disposal) Impact (objective) Impact (uncontrolled) Soft landing (a) Divided by nation 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Longitude [ ◦ ] 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 Latitude [ ◦ ] Nation Event type China Europe India Israel Japan Russia USA USSR Crash landing Impact (decay) Impact (disposal) Impact (objective) Impact (uncontrolled) Soft landing Crash landing Impact (decay) Impact (disposal) Impact (objective) Impact (uncontrolled) Soft landing (b) Divided by mission result. 180 150 120 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 Longitude [ ◦ ] 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 Latitude [ ◦ ] Verification status Event type Approximate Imaged (LRO) Telemetry Crash landing Impact (decay) Impact (disposal) Impact (objective) Impact (uncontrolled) Soft landing Crash landing Impact (decay) Impact (disposal) Impact (objective) Impact (uncontrolled) Soft landing (c) Divided by location verification method. Figure 4: Anthropogenic objects on the lunar surface, with different legends. Coordinates are in DE421 mean Earth/polar rotation axis reference frame [8]. Background image from Clementine UV/Visible (UV/Vis) multi-spectral camera [9]. IAC-25,A6,2,2,x100635 Page 9 of 10