Space exploration combines short encounters with distant worlds, years of robotic investigation and long periods of human life in orbit. Eleven charts examine Mars missions, lunar exploration, NASA funding and astronaut experience. Five additional comparisons explore lunar outcomes, Apollo samples, mission types, budget priorities and rover operating timelines. A detailed lunar mission table brings together 120 catalogue entries launched between 1958 and 2024.
Historical series and snapshots have explicit cutoffs. Mission components, launches, astronaut selections and people who have flown are different measures. The lunar catalogue is a selected mission record, not every spacecraft or secondary payload ever sent toward the Moon. Proposed future budgets are excluded.
Statistics
- Mars missions returning data, by launch decade
- Successful lunar catalogue entries by programme, through 2024
- NASA’s share of US federal spending, 1959–2026
- NASA astronaut candidates selected, through August 2026
- Selected astronauts with long cumulative spaceflight experience
- Launch year and destination distance for selected probes
- Lunar mission outcomes by launch decade
- Lunar sample mass returned by Apollo missions
- Ways of exploring the Moon
- NASA budget allocation by programme area, FY2025
- Mars rover operating timelines, through the end of 2024
- Lunar mission reference table
1. Mars missions returning data, by launch decade
USAUSSREuropeEurope / RussiaIndiaUAEChina
The United States dominates the early decades of successful Mars exploration in this selection, moving from flybys to orbiters, landers and rovers. Soviet missions contributed limited data despite serious difficulties, while later decades brought additional participants. Europe, India, the United Arab Emirates and China broadened the range of programmes investigating the planet.
The pattern is not a simple race in which every new mission replaces an earlier one. Orbiters can support surface operations, and different spacecraft investigate atmosphere, geology and the search for environments that might once have supported life. A mission count also hides enormous differences in scientific return: a brief encounter and years of surface exploration each represent one campaign here. The growing variety of participants nevertheless marks an important change in the organisation of planetary exploration. Mars has become a destination for several national and international programmes, with different instruments and approaches contributing to a more detailed picture of the same world.
Campaign roster included in this pack. Sources: NASA/JPL Mars mission history, ESA Mars history and China NSSDC Tianwen-1. Launches through 2024. Mars 2, Mars 3, Mars 5 and Phobos 2 count as partial data-return successes; failed lander components do not erase an orbiter success. ExoMars TGO is counted once in a joint category.
2. Successful lunar catalogue entries by programme, through 2024
USA — 28USSR — 21China — 9India — 3Japan — 2Europe — 1South Korea — 1
The United States and Soviet Union account for much of the successful lunar exploration recorded here. Their large contributions reflect the intense early period of Moon exploration, including robotic investigations and the Apollo landings. China forms the next major group, while India, Japan, Europe and South Korea add further successful entries.
This distribution places recent achievements within a longer history. A smaller total does not make a mission scientifically unimportant: a first orbiter, a difficult landing or an investigation of a new location can add knowledge that earlier missions could not provide. Different programmes also emphasise different goals, from mapping and surface measurements to bringing material back to Earth. The Moon’s relative proximity makes it accessible compared with the outer planets, but reaching it and operating successfully remain demanding tasks. The broad pattern shows an exploration history that began with two dominant powers and has gradually expanded to include a wider group of participants.
Source: NASA lunar exploration mission catalogue. Catalogue entries launched through 2024; components listed separately by NASA remain separate entries. These counts are not unique launches. Outcome descriptions follow the catalogue as retrieved in October 2026; the selection is not a complete launch manifest.

Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface represents one of the best-known achievements within the American lunar programme. Apollo 11 combined a crewed landing with observations and the collection of material that could be studied on Earth. The photograph gives a human setting to the programme totals above, but one famous landing is only part of a much wider history. Orbiters, robotic landers and later Apollo crews contributed different kinds of evidence. Together, those missions turned the Moon from a distant object observed mainly through telescopes into a world whose surface could be visited, sampled and investigated directly.
3. NASA’s share of US federal spending, 1959–2026
NASA’s share of federal spending rose sharply during the build-up to the Apollo landings and then fell. The peak is striking because it shows how exceptional that period was within the agency’s history. Later programmes continued to produce major scientific and human-spaceflight achievements with a much smaller share of the overall federal budget.
A budget share describes political and financial priority within a wider set of national commitments. It can fall because NASA funding changes, because other government spending grows, or through both processes together. It therefore offers a different perspective from the dollar amount alone. The long decline from the Apollo peak should not be read as a matching decline in scientific capability: technology, mission design and the balance of activities have changed substantially. The comparison instead highlights the extraordinary concentration of resources behind the first Moon landings and the more sustained, lower-share funding environment in which later exploration has developed.
Source: The Planetary Society, NASA Historical Budget Dataset, CSV generated April 2026, CC BY 4.0. Enacted appropriations as a percentage of federal spending, fiscal years 1959–2026. Replaces the inconsistent constant-dollar series with a consistently defined budget measure. No 2027 proposal is included.
4. NASA astronaut candidates selected, through August 2026
Men — 303Women — 67
Men account for a large majority of the people selected as NASA astronaut candidates across the programme’s history. Women make up a smaller cumulative share, reflecting a selection history that began with all-male groups. The total brings together many generations of candidates rather than describing the composition of one recent class or the active astronaut corps.
Representation in a long-running programme changes slowly when earlier selections remain part of the cumulative total. A newer group can look substantially different while having only a modest effect on the historical balance. Selection is also one stage in an astronaut’s career: training, assignment and flight opportunities follow, and not every selected candidate necessarily reaches space. The figures therefore describe access to the NASA candidate programme rather than the number of women and men who have flown worldwide. They provide a historical perspective on participation while leaving room for more detailed comparisons of particular generations, missions and professional roles.
Source: NASA Astronaut Fact Book, “Total number of NASA astronaut candidates selected”, updated August 2026: 370, including 303 men and 67 women. This replaces the undated US/non-US traveller figures with a verifiable selection measure; it is not a count of people flown.
5. Selected astronauts with long cumulative spaceflight experience
Oleg Kononenko stands above the other selected astronauts in cumulative time spent in space, with more than eleven hundred days. Several others have totals well above seven hundred days, accumulated through demanding orbital missions. Peggy Whitson’s presence among these names shows the scale of experience built through repeated long-duration flights as well as later commercial missions.
Cumulative time is different from the length of one uninterrupted stay. An astronaut can reach a high total through several expeditions separated by years on Earth, bringing experience from different crews, spacecraft and research programmes. Long residence in orbit also means repeated adaptation to everyday work in microgravity, where exercise, maintenance and scientific tasks share a confined environment. These totals describe endurance and opportunity together: flight assignments and the duration of available missions strongly influence how much time a person can accumulate. They are therefore records of particular careers, rather than a simple measure of skill or scientific achievement.
Historical career snapshots supplied with the page, rounded to 0.1 day; selected names, not a complete current ranking. Kononenko through September 2024; Whitson through July 2025. Whitson’s rounded total is confirmed by NASA, Axiom Mission 4 return. Other retained career totals have not been independently revalidated for subsequent flights.

Peggy Whitson’s career illustrates how repeated missions can build an exceptional total of time in space. Her cumulative experience includes long stays aboard the International Space Station as well as later commercial flights. The comparison above places that career alongside other astronauts and cosmonauts whose totals extend across many months of orbital life. Such experience involves much more than launch and landing: research, exercise, maintenance and cooperation with crewmates fill the intervening days. Her portrait gives a face to the cumulative figures and highlights the sustained work behind a record assembled over several separate journeys beyond Earth.
6. Launch year and destination distance for selected probes
● Inner planet · ● Gas giant · ● Outer planetary destination
Later launches do not automatically travel to more distant destinations. Voyager 2 reached Neptune after launching in the 1970s, while much later spacecraft concentrated on Venus, Jupiter or Saturn. New Horizons extended close-up exploration to Pluto, illustrating a different mission goal from the long investigations carried out by planetary orbiters.
Distance alone also does not determine the character of a mission. A flyby can deliver a brief but revealing encounter, whereas entering orbit requires a different trajectory and allows repeated observations. Travel times depend on launch opportunities, gravity assists and the planned arrival, not simply on how far the destination lies from the Sun. The variety shown here reflects scientific choices as much as technological change. Exploration has repeatedly returned to relatively nearby planets while also reaching outward, because familiar worlds still contain unanswered questions. The result is a branching programme of investigation rather than a steady progression toward ever more distant targets.
Five selected NASA missions. X: launch year; Y: target’s approximate mean orbital distance from the Sun in AU, not spacecraft travel distance. Voyager 2 uses Neptune; New Horizons uses Pluto. Bubble size: years from launch to that encounter, visibility-adjusted. Sources: Voyager 2, Magellan, Cassini, New Horizons and Juno. Colours: inner planet, gas giant, outer planetary destination.
7. Lunar mission outcomes by launch decade
SuccessfulPartial successUnsuccessfulOther / ongoing
The earliest lunar exploration period contains many unsuccessful attempts alongside the missions that established the first major achievements. Later decades show a different balance, with fewer entries in some periods and renewed activity in others. The pattern illustrates how exploration developed through repeated attempts, technical learning and changing priorities rather than an uninterrupted sequence of successes.
A failed mission can end before reaching the Moon or after completing part of a complex journey. A partial success may still return useful information, so the boundary between a productive mission and a disappointment is not always simple. At the same time, success does not imply that every objective was achieved equally well. The history is best understood as a combination of ambition, engineering risk and scientific return. Periods with many attempts naturally offer more opportunities for both achievement and failure, while quieter decades can still include missions that make important contributions to knowledge of the lunar surface and environment.
Source: NASA lunar exploration mission catalogue. Catalogue entries launched through 2024; components listed separately by NASA remain separate entries. These counts are not unique launches. Outcome descriptions follow the catalogue as retrieved in October 2026; the selection is not a complete launch manifest.
8. Lunar sample mass returned by Apollo missions
The quantity of lunar material returned increased markedly across the six Apollo landings. Apollo 17 brought back more than five times the sample mass of Apollo 11. The later missions therefore added not just more locations to the collection, but substantially larger amounts of rock and soil for laboratory investigation.
Sample mass is only one measure of scientific value. A small, well-chosen specimen can answer an important question, while the location and geological setting of a sample determine how it can be interpreted. Nevertheless, larger collections provide more material for different analytical techniques and for future research using instruments that did not exist when the samples were gathered. The progression also reflects the growing scope of surface exploration as the programme developed. Longer excursions and greater mobility enabled crews to investigate more terrain. The returned material continues to connect those brief visits with research on the Moon’s formation, impacts and volcanic history long after the astronauts came home.
Source: NASA NSSDCA, Apollo Lunar Landings. Kilograms in the published mission table; Apollo 15 uses that table’s 77.31 kg figure. Other NASA summaries use slightly different totals because sample accounting differs.

The Apollo 17 lunar rover helped astronauts explore beyond the immediate landing area. That greater mobility provides context for the mission’s large sample return in the comparison above. Travelling between geological settings allowed the crew to observe and collect material from different places, while still facing strict limits on time and equipment. The vehicle therefore represents an expansion in the practical reach of a lunar surface mission. The scientific value came from combining movement, observation and careful sampling, so the larger collection was part of a wider effort to understand how the landscape had formed and changed.
9. Ways of exploring the Moon
Lander / rover — 36Orbiter — 34Impact mission — 19Sample return — 19Flyby — 12
Lunar exploration uses several complementary approaches. Orbiters can observe broad areas repeatedly, while landers and rovers investigate particular places at close range. Flybys provide shorter encounters, impact missions investigate or target the surface, and sample-return missions connect exploration with laboratories on Earth. No single approach can answer every scientific question.
The balance between these activities reflects the different demands of observation and access. Mapping from orbit can identify patterns across a large area, but direct surface measurements reveal details that distant instruments may miss. Returning material adds another level of investigation because researchers can apply many techniques to the same sample over time. Some missions combine several roles, linking an orbiter with a lander or a return vehicle. The variety therefore represents a set of connected tools for understanding one world. It also explains why simply counting missions does not capture the range of scientific work carried out during the history of lunar exploration.
Source: NASA lunar exploration mission catalogue. Catalogue entries launched through 2024; components listed separately by NASA remain separate entries. These counts are not unique launches. Outcome descriptions follow the catalogue as retrieved in October 2026; the selection is not a complete launch manifest. Mixed missions assigned once using this priority: sample return; lander/rover; impact; orbiter; flyby. Includes unsuccessful attempts, so this describes mission designs rather than completed activities.
10. NASA budget allocation by programme area, FY2025
Science — 7.3342Aeronautics — 0.935Deep space exploration — 7.6662Space Operations — 4.22Space Technology — 1.1Facilities, IT & salaries — 3.3923STEM education — 0.143
Deep space exploration and science account for the largest portions of this NASA budget breakdown. Space operations form another substantial area, while technology, aeronautics and the facilities and staff needed to support the agency take smaller but important shares. The distribution shows that NASA’s work extends well beyond any single spacecraft or headline mission.
These activities depend on one another. New technologies can make future missions possible, operational experience supports human spaceflight, and scientific instruments turn access to space into useful knowledge. Buildings, information systems and specialist staff are also part of that effort, even when they are less visible than a launch. The funding balance expresses choices between maintaining current capabilities and developing future ones. A large allocation does not automatically imply greater scientific value, since different activities have different costs and timescales. The overall picture is of an organisation supporting several kinds of exploration and research at once, with resources distributed across both missions and the infrastructure behind them.
Source: The Planetary Society, FY2025 NASA budget, directorate CSV generated March 2026, CC BY 4.0; NASA budget documents. Billions of nominal US dollars. STEM education is included rather than omitted as a small category.
11. Mars rover operating timelines, through the end of 2024
The operating spans of these rovers show how surface exploration developed from a short demonstration into years of investigation. Sojourner’s brief mission established a very different scale from the long traverses later undertaken by Spirit and Opportunity. Curiosity and Perseverance add further overlapping periods of work, allowing different locations and geological questions to be investigated at the same time.
A long-lived rover can revisit sites, follow changing conditions and build a sequence of observations that a short visit cannot provide. Longevity also creates challenges: components age, terrain can be difficult and the environment places limits on power and communication. The extended work of these machines therefore reflects continued operations as well as the original design. Their different starting dates underline that exploration is cumulative. New missions arrive while earlier ones may still be contributing, producing several perspectives on the planet rather than one rover handing over a single continuous journey to its successor.
Source: NASA Mars rover history and NASA Spirit and Opportunity. Surface landing to last communication for ended missions. Asterisks: Curiosity and Perseverance still operating at the 31 December 2024 cutoff; bars are truncated there, not mission end dates. Decimal years; Sojourner’s short interval is intentionally small.

Curiosity’s self-portrait at Mont Mercou shows a rover working within a landscape it can examine over time. Its long operating span in the comparison above allows investigations to build on earlier observations as the mission moves between geological settings. Rocks, layers and textures can be studied in relation to one another, rather than treated as isolated objects seen during a brief encounter. The photograph also makes the scale of the machinery visible against the terrain. A rover combines mobility with instruments, communication and careful planning, allowing researchers on Earth to investigate another planet through repeated decisions and measurements.
12. Lunar mission reference table
120 NASA catalogue entries launched in 1958–2024. Scroll across and down. Mission components can appear separately; N/A means no recorded lunar arrival. Outcomes follow the retrieved catalogue, not necessarily the status at the launch-year cutoff.
| Mission / component | Programme / country | Launch year | Launch date | Lunar arrival | Mission type | Outcome group | Catalogue outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pioneer 0 | USA | 1958 | Aug. 17, 1958 | N/A | Orbiter | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1958 | Sept. 23, 1958 | N/A | Impact | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Pioneer 1 | USA | 1958 | Oct. 11, 1958 | N/A | Orbiter | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1958 | Oct. 11, 1958 | N/A | Impact | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Pioneer 2 | USA | 1958 | Nov. 8, 1958 | N/A | Orbiter | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1958 | Dec. 4, 1958 | N/A | Impact | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Pioneer 3 | USA | 1958 | Dec. 7, 1958 | N/A | Flyby | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 1 | USSR | 1959 | Jan. 2, 1959 | Jan. 4, 1959 | Impact | Partial success | Partial Success; first Moon flyby |
| Pioneer 4 | USA | 1959 | March 3, 1959 | Mar. 4., 1959 | Flyby | Partial success | Partial Success |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1959 | June 18, 1959 | N/A | Impact | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 2 | USSR | 1959 | Sept. 12, 1959 | Sept. 13, 1959 | Impact | Successful | Successful; first spacecraft to impact the Moon's surface |
| Pioneer P-1 | USA | 1959 | Sept. 24, 1959 | N/A | Orbiter | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 3 | USSR | 1959 | Oct. 4, 1959 | Oct. 6, 1959 | Flyby | Successful | Successful; first pictures of the lunar farside. |
| Pioneer P-3 | USA | 1959 | Nov. 26, 1959 | N/A | Orbiter | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1960 | April 15, 1960 | N/A | Flyby | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1960 | April 16, 1960 | N/A | Flyby | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Pioneer P-30 | USA | 1960 | Sep. 25, 1960 | N/A | Orbiter | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Pioneer P-31 | USA | 1960 | Dec. 15. 1960 | N/A | Orbiter | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Ranger 3 | USA | 1962 | Jan. 26, 1962 | N/A | Impact | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Ranger 4 | USA | 1962 | April 26, 1962 | N/A | Impact | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Ranger 5 | USA | 1962 | Oct. 21, 1962 | N/A | Impact | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1963 | Jan. 4, 1963 | N/A | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1963 | Feb. 3, 1963 | N/A | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 4 | USSR | 1963 | April 2, 1963 | April 6, 1963 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; flew past Moon. |
| Ranger 6 | USA | 1964 | Jan. 30, 1964 | Feb. 2, 1965 | Impact | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1964 | March 21, 1964 | N/A | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1964 | April 20, 1964 | N/A | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Ranger 7 | USA | 1964 | July 28, 1964 | July 31, 1964 | Impact | Successful | Successful; first U.S. close-up pictures of the Moon |
| Ranger 8 | USA | 1965 | Feb. 17, 1965 | Feb. 20, 1965 | Impact | Successful | Successful |
| Kosmos 60 | USSR | 1965 | March 12, 1965 | N/A | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Ranger 9 | USA | 1965 | March 21, 1965 | March 24, 1965 | Impact | Successful | Successful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1965 | April 10, 1965 | N/A | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 5 | USSR | 1965 | May 9, 1965 | May 12, 1965 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; impacted Moon |
| Luna 6 | USSR | 1965 | June 8, 1965 | June 11, 1965 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; flyby |
| Zond 3 | USSR | 1965 | July 18, 1965 | July 20, 1965 | Flyby | Successful | Successful |
| Luna 7 | USSR | 1965 | Oct. 4, 1965 | Oct. 7, 1965 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; impacted Moon |
| Luna 8 | USSR | 1965 | Dec. 3, 1965 | Dec. 6, 1965 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; impacted Moon |
| Luna 9 | USSR | 1966 | Jan. 31, 1966 | Feb. 3, 1966 | Lander | Successful | Successful; first lunar soft landing and first picture from the lunar surface |
| Kosmos 111 | USSR | 1966 | March 1, 1966 | N/A | Orbiter | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 10 | USSR | 1966 | March 31, 1966 | April 3, 1966 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful; first lunar orbiter |
| Surveyor 1 | USA | 1966 | May 30, 1966 | June 2, 1966 | Lander | Successful | Successful; first U.S. Moon landing and first U.S. photo from the lunar surface. |
| Lunar Orbiter 1 | USA | 1966 | Aug. 10, 1966 | Aug. 14, 1966 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Luna 11 | USSR | 1966 | Aug. 24, 1966 | Aug. 27, 1966 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Surveyor 2 | USA | 1966 | Sept. 20, 1966 | Sept. 23, 1966 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; impacted Moon |
| Luna 12 | USSR | 1966 | Oct. 22, 1966 | Oct. 25, 1966 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Lunar Orbiter 2 | USA | 1966 | Nov. 6, 1966 | Nov. 10, 1966 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Luna 13 | USSR | 1966 | Dec. 21, 1966 | Dec. 24, 1966 | Lander | Successful | Successful |
| Lunar Orbiter 3 | USA | 1967 | Feb. 5, 1967 | Feb. 8, 1967 | Orbiter | Partial success | Partial success; camera failure |
| Surveyor 3 | USA | 1967 | April 17, 1967 | April 20, 1967 | Lander | Successful | Successful; visited on the Moon by Apollo 12 crew. |
| Lunar Orbiter 4 | USA | 1967 | May 4, 1967 | May 8, 1967 | Orbiter | Partial success | Partial success; camera failure |
| Surveyor 4 | USA | 1967 | July 14, 1967 | July 17, 1967 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Lunar Orbiter 5 | USA | 1967 | Aug. 1, 1967 | Aug. 5, 1967 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Surveyor 5 | USA | 1967 | Sept. 8, 1967 | Sept. 11, 1967 | Lander | Successful | Successful |
| Surveyor 6 | USA | 1967 | Nov. 7, 1967 | Nov. 10, 1967 | Lander | Successful | Successful |
| Surveyor 7 | USA | 1968 | Jan. 7, 1968 | Jan. 10, 1968 | Lander | Successful | Successful |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1968 | Feb. 7, 1968 | N/A | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 14 | USSR | 1968 | April 7, 1968 | April 10, 1968 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Zond 5 | USSR | 1968 | Sept. 15, 1968 | Sept. 18, 1968 | Flyby | Successful | Successful; first living creatures to fly past the Moon |
| Zond 6 | USSR | 1968 | Nov. 10, 1968 | Nov. 14, 1968 | Flyby | Partial success | Partial success; animal cargo lost on landing. |
| Apollo 8 | USA | 1968 | Dec. 21, 1968 | Dec. 24, 1968 | Orbiter | Successful | Success; first humans to orbit the Moon |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1969 | Feb. 19, 1969 | N/A | Rover | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; first attempted Moon rover |
| Apollo 10 | USA | 1969 | May 18, 1969 | May 21, 1969 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful; lander test in lunar orbit |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1969 | June 14, 1969 | N/A | Sample Return | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 15 | USSR | 1969 | July 13, 1969 | July 18, 1969 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Partial success | Partial success; orbiter successful, sample return crashed on the Moon |
| Apollo 11 | USA | 1969 | July 16, 1969 | July 20, 1969 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Successful | Successful; first humans to land on the Moon |
| Zond 7 | USSR | 1969 | Aug. 7, 1969 | Aug. 11, 1969 | Flyby | Successful | Successful |
| Kosmos 300 | USSR | 1969 | Sept. 23, 1969 | N/A | Sample Return | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Kosmos 305 | USSR | 1969 | Oct. 22, 1969 | N/A | Sample Return | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Apollo 12 | USA | 1969 | Nov. 14, 1969 | Nov. 17,1969 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Successful | Successful; rendezvous with Surveyor 3 on the surface of the moon. |
| Apollo 13 | USA | 1970 | 4/11/1970 | 4/15/1970 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; crew returned safely to Earth. |
| Unnamed Luna | USSR | 1970 | 2/6/1970 | N/A | Sample Return | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 16 | USSR | 1970 | 9/12/1970 | 9/20/1970 | Sample Return | Successful | Successful; first robotic sample return from beyond Earth. |
| Zond 8 | USSR | 1970 | 10/20/1970 | 10/24/1970 | Flyby | Successful | Successful |
| Luna 17 | USSR | 1970 | 11/10/1970 | 11/17/1970 | Lander | Successful | Successful; delivered Lunokhod 1 rover to the surface of the Moon |
| Lunokhod 1 | USSR | 1970 | 11/10/1970 | 11/17/1970 | Rover | Successful | Successful; first robotic rover to explore the surface of a world beyond Earth |
| Apollo 14 | USA | 1971 | 1/31/1971 | 2/4/1971 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Successful | Successful |
| Apollo 15 | USA | 1971 | 7/26/1971 | 7/29/1971 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Successful | Successful |
| PFS-1 | USA | 1971 | 7/26/1971 | 8/4/1971 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful; deployed in lunar orbit by Apollo 15 crew |
| Luna 18 | USSR | 1971 | 9/2/1971 | 9/11/1971 | Sample Return | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Luna 19 | USSR | 1971 | 9/28/1971 | 10/3/1971 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Luna 20 | USSR | 1972 | 2/14/1972 | 2/21/1972 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Successful | Successful |
| Apollo 16 | USA | 1972 | 4/16/1972 | 4/19/1972 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Successful | Successful |
| PFS-2 | USA | 1972 | 4/16/1972 | 4/24/1972 | Orbiter | Partial success | Partial Success; orbit decayed prematurely |
| Apollo 17 | USA | 1972 | 12/7/1972 | 12/10/1972 | Orbiter/Sample Return | Successful | Successful; first scientist on the Moon and final Apollo mission |
| Luna 21 | USSR | 1973 | 1/8/1973 | 1/15/1973 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful; delivered Lunokhod 2 rover to the surface of the Moon |
| Lunokhod 2 | USSR | 1973 | 1/8/1973 | 1/15/1973 | Rover | Successful | Successful; longest-lived rover on the Moon, drove 24 miles (39 kilometers) |
| Luna 22 | USSR | 1974 | 5/29/1974 | 6/2/1974 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Luna 23 | USSR | 1974 | 10/28/1974 | 11/6/1974 | Sample Return | Partial success | Partial Success |
| Luna 24 | USSR | 1976 | 8/9/1976 | 8/18/1976 | Sample Return | Successful | Successful |
| Hiten | Japan | 1990 | 1/24/1990 | 3/19/1990 | Orbiter/Impact | Successful | Successful; first Japanese Moon mission |
| Clementine | USA | 1994 | 1/25/1994 | 2/19/1994 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Lunar Prospector | USA | 1998 | 1/7/1998 | 1//11/1998 | Orbiter/Impact | Successful | Successful |
| SMART-1 | Europe | 2003 | 9/27/2003 | 11/15/2004 | Orbiter/Impact | Successful | Successful; first European Moon mission |
| SELENE (Kaguya) | Japan | 2007 | 9/14/2007 | 10/3/2007 | Orbiter/Impact | Successful | Successful |
| Chang'e 1 | China | 2007 | 10/24/2007 | 11/5/2007 | Orbiter/impactor | Successful | Successful; first Chinese Moon mission |
| Chandrayaan-1 | India | 2008 | 10/22/2008 | 11/12/2008 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) | USA | 2009 | 6/18/2009 | 6/23/2009 | Orbiter | Successful | (Active Mission) Successful; extended mission in progress |
| LCROSS | USA | 2009 | 6/18/2009 | 10/9/2009 | Impact | Successful | Successful; impact of LRO upper stages |
| Chang'e 2 | China | 2010 | 10/1/2010 | 10/5/2010 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| ARTEMIS-THEMIS | USA | 2010 | 2010 | 2011 | Orbiters | Successful | (Active Mission) Successful; twin spacecraft on an extended lunar mission after successful Earth observations |
| Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) | USA | 2011 | 9/10/2011 | 1/1/2012 | Orbiters | Successful | Successful; twin spacecraft |
| Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) | USA | 2013 | 9/7/2013 | 10/6/2013 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Chang'e 3 | China | 2013 | 12/6/2013 | 12/14/2013 | Lander | Successful | (Active Mission) Successful; delivered Yutu rover to lunar surface |
| Yutu | China | 2013 | 12/6/2013 | 12/14/2013 | Rover | Successful | Successful; first non-Soviet rover on the Moon |
| Chang'e 5-Test Vehicle | China | 2014 | 10/23/2014 | 10/27/2014 | Flyby | Successful | Successful |
| Queqiao | China | 2018 | 5/20/2018 | Not recorded | Orbiter | Successful | Successful; lunar relay satellite |
| Chang'e 4 and Yutu 2 | China | 2018 | 12/7/2018 | 01/03/2019 | Lander, Rover | Successful | Successful; first lunar farside landing |
| Beresheet | Israel (SpaceIL & Israel Aerospace Industries) | 2019 | 2/22/2019 | 4/11/2019 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; first lunar landing attempt by a private company |
| Chandrayaan-2 | India | 2019 | 7/22/2019 | N/A | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Chang'e 5 | China | 2020 | 11/23/2020 | 12/1/2020 | Sample Return | Successful | Successful |
| Danuri (Korean Pathfinder Lunar Orbiter) | South Korea | 2022 | 8/04/2022 | 12/16/2022 | Orbiter | Successful | Successful |
| Artemis I | USA | 2022 | 11/16/2022 | 11/21/2022 | Flyby | Successful | Successful; first flight test of the Space Launch System rocket and the Orion capsule |
| Hakuto-R Mission 1 | Japan (ispace) | 2022 | 12/11/2022 | 3/21/2023 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Emirates Lunar Mission | United Arab Emirates | 2022 | 12/11/2022 | 3/21/2023 | Rover | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| Chandrayaan-3 | India | 2023 | 07/14/2023 | 08/23/2023 | Lander and Rover | Successful | Successful; First spacecraft to soft land near the lunar South Pole. |
| Luna 25 | Russia | 2023 | 08/10/2023 | 08/19/2023 | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful |
| SLIM | Japan | 2023 | 09/06/2023 | 12/25/2023 | Lander and Rover | Other / ongoing | Soft landing, but with limited use of solar panels. |
| Peregrine Mission 1 | USA (Astrobotic) | 2024 | 01/08/2024 | N/A | Lander | Unsuccessful | Unsuccessful; First launch under NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program |
| IM-1 | USA (Intuitive Machines) | 2024 | 02/15/2024 | 02/22/2024 | Lander | Other / ongoing | First commercial soft lunar landing. The lander tipped over interfering with communications. |
| Chang'e 6 | China | 2024 | 05/03/2024 | 06/01/2024 | Sample Return Mission | Successful | Successful. First sample return from the lunar far side. |
Other pages
Sources and image credits
Source: NASA lunar exploration mission catalogue. Catalogue entries launched through 2024; components listed separately by NASA remain separate entries. These counts are not unique launches. Outcome descriptions follow the catalogue as retrieved in October 2026; the selection is not a complete launch manifest. Apollo samples: NASA NSSDCA. Budget: The Planetary Society. Astronaut selections: NASA. Images are credited individually to their Wikimedia Commons file and licence pages.
