ELI5: Why they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why...
$begingroup$
In the news they say that
Israel hoped to become the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon. Only government space agencies from the former Soviet Union, the US and China have made successful Moon landings.
E.g. haaretz, BBC
Why they don't mention the Indian Chandrayaan-1?
The BBC article that I quote here even provides a picture from NASA with the list of successful moon landings that includes a station from India.
Another question: why they call it low cost? According to the same BBC article,
The project has cost about $100m (£76m) and has paved the way for
future low-cost lunar exploration.
Wikipedia says that the cost of the Chandrayaan-1 project was US$54 million.
Disclaimer: I am not an Indian.
the-moon
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1063
New contributor
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the news they say that
Israel hoped to become the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon. Only government space agencies from the former Soviet Union, the US and China have made successful Moon landings.
E.g. haaretz, BBC
Why they don't mention the Indian Chandrayaan-1?
The BBC article that I quote here even provides a picture from NASA with the list of successful moon landings that includes a station from India.
Another question: why they call it low cost? According to the same BBC article,
The project has cost about $100m (£76m) and has paved the way for
future low-cost lunar exploration.
Wikipedia says that the cost of the Chandrayaan-1 project was US$54 million.
Disclaimer: I am not an Indian.
the-moon
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1063
New contributor
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the news they say that
Israel hoped to become the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon. Only government space agencies from the former Soviet Union, the US and China have made successful Moon landings.
E.g. haaretz, BBC
Why they don't mention the Indian Chandrayaan-1?
The BBC article that I quote here even provides a picture from NASA with the list of successful moon landings that includes a station from India.
Another question: why they call it low cost? According to the same BBC article,
The project has cost about $100m (£76m) and has paved the way for
future low-cost lunar exploration.
Wikipedia says that the cost of the Chandrayaan-1 project was US$54 million.
Disclaimer: I am not an Indian.
the-moon
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1063
New contributor
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
In the news they say that
Israel hoped to become the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon. Only government space agencies from the former Soviet Union, the US and China have made successful Moon landings.
E.g. haaretz, BBC
Why they don't mention the Indian Chandrayaan-1?
The BBC article that I quote here even provides a picture from NASA with the list of successful moon landings that includes a station from India.
Another question: why they call it low cost? According to the same BBC article,
The project has cost about $100m (£76m) and has paved the way for
future low-cost lunar exploration.
Wikipedia says that the cost of the Chandrayaan-1 project was US$54 million.
Disclaimer: I am not an Indian.
the-moon
the-moon
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1063
New contributor
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1063
New contributor
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1063
New contributor
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1063
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1063
1063
New contributor
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Chandrayaan-1 hit the Moon at high speed and did not survive its "landing", which would have been much more difficult to engineer. (Its successor, Chandrayaan-2, which will actually land, is expected to cost $125 million and has taken more than ten years so far, as opposed to the three years for Chandrayaan-1.)
As far as cost goes, besides India's own (still unlaunched) soft lander that costs $25 million more than Israel's attempt, compare the costs of the US Surveyor program. NASA spent $469 million in the mid 1960s to launch seven probes, five of which successfully landed. Most of that money went to developing the technology needed for all the probes to work, and each probe cost a small fraction of that to actually build. Adjusting that amount for inflation, you get almost $3.8 billion in 2019 dollars. So if we had to start from 1960s technology and launch a new probe to land on the Moon, the cost would probably be somewhere around there. That's nearly forty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,87142638
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35475%2feli5-why-they-say-that-israel-would-have-been-the-fourth-country-to-land-a-spac%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Chandrayaan-1 hit the Moon at high speed and did not survive its "landing", which would have been much more difficult to engineer. (Its successor, Chandrayaan-2, which will actually land, is expected to cost $125 million and has taken more than ten years so far, as opposed to the three years for Chandrayaan-1.)
As far as cost goes, besides India's own (still unlaunched) soft lander that costs $25 million more than Israel's attempt, compare the costs of the US Surveyor program. NASA spent $469 million in the mid 1960s to launch seven probes, five of which successfully landed. Most of that money went to developing the technology needed for all the probes to work, and each probe cost a small fraction of that to actually build. Adjusting that amount for inflation, you get almost $3.8 billion in 2019 dollars. So if we had to start from 1960s technology and launch a new probe to land on the Moon, the cost would probably be somewhere around there. That's nearly forty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,87142638
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Chandrayaan-1 hit the Moon at high speed and did not survive its "landing", which would have been much more difficult to engineer. (Its successor, Chandrayaan-2, which will actually land, is expected to cost $125 million and has taken more than ten years so far, as opposed to the three years for Chandrayaan-1.)
As far as cost goes, besides India's own (still unlaunched) soft lander that costs $25 million more than Israel's attempt, compare the costs of the US Surveyor program. NASA spent $469 million in the mid 1960s to launch seven probes, five of which successfully landed. Most of that money went to developing the technology needed for all the probes to work, and each probe cost a small fraction of that to actually build. Adjusting that amount for inflation, you get almost $3.8 billion in 2019 dollars. So if we had to start from 1960s technology and launch a new probe to land on the Moon, the cost would probably be somewhere around there. That's nearly forty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,87142638
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Chandrayaan-1 hit the Moon at high speed and did not survive its "landing", which would have been much more difficult to engineer. (Its successor, Chandrayaan-2, which will actually land, is expected to cost $125 million and has taken more than ten years so far, as opposed to the three years for Chandrayaan-1.)
As far as cost goes, besides India's own (still unlaunched) soft lander that costs $25 million more than Israel's attempt, compare the costs of the US Surveyor program. NASA spent $469 million in the mid 1960s to launch seven probes, five of which successfully landed. Most of that money went to developing the technology needed for all the probes to work, and each probe cost a small fraction of that to actually build. Adjusting that amount for inflation, you get almost $3.8 billion in 2019 dollars. So if we had to start from 1960s technology and launch a new probe to land on the Moon, the cost would probably be somewhere around there. That's nearly forty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,87142638
$endgroup$
Chandrayaan-1 hit the Moon at high speed and did not survive its "landing", which would have been much more difficult to engineer. (Its successor, Chandrayaan-2, which will actually land, is expected to cost $125 million and has taken more than ten years so far, as opposed to the three years for Chandrayaan-1.)
As far as cost goes, besides India's own (still unlaunched) soft lander that costs $25 million more than Israel's attempt, compare the costs of the US Surveyor program. NASA spent $469 million in the mid 1960s to launch seven probes, five of which successfully landed. Most of that money went to developing the technology needed for all the probes to work, and each probe cost a small fraction of that to actually build. Adjusting that amount for inflation, you get almost $3.8 billion in 2019 dollars. So if we had to start from 1960s technology and launch a new probe to land on the Moon, the cost would probably be somewhere around there. That's nearly forty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,87142638
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,87142638
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,87142638
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,87142638
3,87142638
add a comment |
add a comment |
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35475%2feli5-why-they-say-that-israel-would-have-been-the-fourth-country-to-land-a-spac%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago