ELI5: Why they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why...












1












$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question







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
















1












$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question







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














1












1








1





$begingroup$


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.










share|improve this question







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






share|improve this question







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.











share|improve this question







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.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






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




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


















  • $begingroup$
    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










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

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.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    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.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    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









    2












    $begingroup$

    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.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      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.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        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.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        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.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy

        3,87142638




        3,87142638






















            Vladislav Gladkikh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            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





















































            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Knooppunt Holsloot

            Altaar (religie)

            Gregoriusmis