In the dynamic realm of space exploration, timing can play a crucial role in determining the success of interplanetary missions. Recent developments in lunar exploration have drawn attention to the differences in approach and execution between two significant players, India and Russia. 

As India’s Chandrayaan-3 and Russia’s Luna-25 venture towards their respective lunar destinations, the timeline variations between these missions come down to a complex interplay of engineering choices, fuel efficiency, and budget constraints. Examining their trajectories reveals intriguing insights into the challenges and strategies of space travel.

Fuel Efficiency And Orbit Raising

India’s Chandrayaan-3 and Russia’s Luna-25 embark on their lunar journeys with distinct fuel-efficiency strategies. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) operates under a constrained budget, prompting them to engineer their missions meticulously to minimize costs. This results in smaller spacecraft and launch vehicles.

Chandrayaan-3’s launch vehicle, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), possesses limited payload capacity, necessitating a series of orbit-raising maneuvers around Earth to conserve fuel. The spacecraft gradually climbs higher in successive orbits, ultimately breaking free from Earth’s gravity.

This approach is exemplified by ISRO’s Mars Orbiter Mission (Mangalyaan), which took a longer time to reach Mars orbit due to orbit-raising.

In contrast, Russia’s Luna-25 launched atop a more robust rocket, could have entered a direct lunar orbit sooner. The Russian craft, Luna-25, enjoyed the luxury of a more powerful launch vehicle that can carry a larger payload directly to the moon.

This advantageous trajectory obviated the need for extended orbit-raising maneuvers, leading to a quicker lunar arrival than Chandrayaan-3.

Also Read: Who Is Nambi Narayanan And What Happened With Him In 1994

Orbit Lowering And Descent

As the spacecraft approaches their lunar destinations, they execute orbit-lowering maneuvers to align themselves with their respective landing sites. Chandrayaan-3 utilizes a propulsion module to execute a series of orbit-lowering maneuvers.

The module, equipped with fuel, meticulously adjusts the craft’s trajectory to achieve a circular orbit around the moon at an optimal altitude for landing. This complex process involves multiple maneuvers, preparing the lander module for its final descent.

On the other hand, Luna-25 had employed its substantial onboard capabilities to enter a 100km circular lunar orbit directly. This method streamlines the process, reducing the time spent orbiting the moon before the landing attempt.

The Russian craft was designed to autonomously execute its landing sequence on the designated date, leveraging its larger payload capacity and design.

Engineering, Budget, And Mission Strategy

A central factor influencing the divergent timelines is the interplay between engineering choices, budget allocations, and mission strategies. India’s ISRO has consistently demonstrated its prowess in executing ambitious missions within limited budgets.

This often necessitates intricate approaches, like gradual orbit raising, to conserve precious fuel resources. The Indian missions, while taking longer to reach their destinations, achieve remarkable feats of space exploration at a fraction of the cost compared to some other space agencies.

Russia, with its rich space exploration history, capitalizes on a different equation. The Luna-25 mission exemplified a robust approach, employing a more potent launch vehicle and a direct trajectory to the moon. This approach aligned with Russia’s space program legacy, where resource allocation allows for a more substantial initial investment in launch capabilities.

The contrasting trajectories of Chandrayaan-3 and Luna-25 highlight the intricate dance between engineering ingenuity, fuel efficiency, budget constraints, and strategic choices in space exploration.

India’s ISRO has consistently demonstrated the ability to achieve impressive missions with meticulous planning and innovative solutions. At the same time, Russia’s Luna-25 leveraged a different set of resources to execute a more direct trajectory.

Both approaches showcase the diversity of strategies for conquering the challenges of space travel, ultimately advancing our understanding of the cosmos. Though Luna 25 was not able to complete its journey to the moon, there were various strategies that Russia employed to make it a successful mission. 

Image Credits: Google Images

Feature Image designed by Saudamini Seth

Sources: The Print, Outlook India, WION

Find the blogger: Katyayani Joshi

This post is tagged under: Russia, India, Chandrayaan 3, Luna 25, trajectory, resources, space, exploration, fuel efficiency, lightweight, propellent, budget, strategic,ISRO, missions, SLV, Satellite Launch Vehicle, cosmos, moon, south pole, launch, mission to moon 

Disclaimer: We do not hold any right, or copyright over any of the images used, these have been taken from Google. In case of credits or removal, the owner may kindly mail us.

Other Recommendations:

Watch: 5 Milestones Which Changed The Course Of India’s Space Programme