ELI5: Why do they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why do they call it low cost? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Why did the Russians never land on the Moon?Would it have been possible to have sent the Space Shuttle around the Moon?Have there been any photos taken of a total Earth-Sun eclipse from the Moon, or its vicinity?Why was the 100m Green Bank dish needed together with DSN's 70m Goldstone dish to detect Chandrayaan-1 in lunar orbit?Why don't we have a base on the moon?With today's technology, how much would it cost to put a man on the Moon again?Was there a technical reason why Apollo 10 didn't land on the moon?Did NASA remove four major photographic atlases of the Moon from its Technical Report Server? Gone for good, or just hype?Why did China land a rover on the moon?Why don't SpaceIL's Beresheet spacecraft and Moon orbits line up?
One-one communication
Project Euler #1 in C++
Test print coming out spongy
A proverb that is used to imply that you have unexpectedly faced a big problem
As a dual citizen, my US passport will expire one day after traveling to the US. Will this work?
Does silver oxide react with hydrogen sulfide?
Does any scripture mention that forms of God or Goddess are symbolic?
AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network
Why datecode is SO IMPORTANT to chip manufacturers?
How to force a browser when connecting to a specific domain to be https only using only the client machine?
How does the math work when buying airline miles?
The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?
I can't produce songs
In musical terms, what properties are varied by the human voice to produce different words / syllables?
Positioning dot before text in math mode
Tannaka duality for semisimple groups
Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?
Is CEO the "profession" with the most psychopaths?
Asymptotics question
New Order #6: Easter Egg
Why not send Voyager 3 and 4 following up the paths taken by Voyager 1 and 2 to re-transmit signals of later as they fly away from Earth?
What is the chair depicted in Cesare Maccari's 1889 painting "Cicerone denuncia Catilina"?
What are the main differences between Stargate SG-1 cuts?
Can you force honesty by using the Speak with Dead and Zone of Truth spells together?
ELI5: Why do they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why do they call it low cost?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Why did the Russians never land on the Moon?Would it have been possible to have sent the Space Shuttle around the Moon?Have there been any photos taken of a total Earth-Sun eclipse from the Moon, or its vicinity?Why was the 100m Green Bank dish needed together with DSN's 70m Goldstone dish to detect Chandrayaan-1 in lunar orbit?Why don't we have a base on the moon?With today's technology, how much would it cost to put a man on the Moon again?Was there a technical reason why Apollo 10 didn't land on the moon?Did NASA remove four major photographic atlases of the Moon from its Technical Report Server? Gone for good, or just hype?Why did China land a rover on the moon?Why don't SpaceIL's Beresheet spacecraft and Moon orbits line up?
$begingroup$
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 don't they 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 do 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 lunar-landing lander beresheet chandrayaan-spacecraft
edited Apr 12 at 9:49
Nathan Tuggy
4,19142739
asked Apr 12 at 3:33
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
20615
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
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 don't they 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 do 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 lunar-landing lander beresheet chandrayaan-spacecraft
edited Apr 12 at 9:49
Nathan Tuggy
4,19142739
asked Apr 12 at 3:33
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
20615
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Apr 12 at 3:46
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
Apr 12 at 6:33
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
Apr 12 at 9:30
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
Apr 12 at 10:53
4
$begingroup$
^^^ and in fact, the guys in the control room said after the crash, "well, it makes us the seventh nation to put an object on the Moon, then". @DarrelHoffman
$endgroup$
– Will Ness
Apr 12 at 16:17
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
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 don't they 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 do 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 lunar-landing lander beresheet chandrayaan-spacecraft
edited Apr 12 at 9:49
Nathan Tuggy
4,19142739
asked Apr 12 at 3:33
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
20615
$endgroup$
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 don't they 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 do 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 lunar-landing lander beresheet chandrayaan-spacecraft
the-moon lunar-landing lander beresheet chandrayaan-spacecraft
edited Apr 12 at 9:49
Nathan Tuggy
4,19142739
asked Apr 12 at 3:33
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
20615
edited Apr 12 at 9:49
Nathan Tuggy
4,19142739
asked Apr 12 at 3:33
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
20615
edited Apr 12 at 9:49
Nathan Tuggy
4,19142739
edited Apr 12 at 9:49
Nathan Tuggy
4,19142739
edited Apr 12 at 9:49
Nathan Tuggy
4,19142739
4,19142739
asked Apr 12 at 3:33
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
20615
asked Apr 12 at 3:33
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
20615
asked Apr 12 at 3:33
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
20615
20615
5
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Apr 12 at 3:46
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
Apr 12 at 6:33
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
Apr 12 at 9:30
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
Apr 12 at 10:53
4
$begingroup$
^^^ and in fact, the guys in the control room said after the crash, "well, it makes us the seventh nation to put an object on the Moon, then". @DarrelHoffman
$endgroup$
– Will Ness
Apr 12 at 16:17
|
show 2 more comments
5
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Apr 12 at 3:46
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
Apr 12 at 6:33
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
Apr 12 at 9:30
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
Apr 12 at 10:53
4
$begingroup$
^^^ and in fact, the guys in the control room said after the crash, "well, it makes us the seventh nation to put an object on the Moon, then". @DarrelHoffman
$endgroup$
– Will Ness
Apr 12 at 16:17
5
5
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Apr 12 at 3:46
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Apr 12 at 3:46
8
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
Apr 12 at 6:33
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
Apr 12 at 6:33
8
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
Apr 12 at 9:30
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
Apr 12 at 9:30
2
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
Apr 12 at 10:53
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
Apr 12 at 10:53
4
4
$begingroup$
^^^ and in fact, the guys in the control room said after the crash, "well, it makes us the seventh nation to put an object on the Moon, then". @DarrelHoffman
$endgroup$
– Will Ness
Apr 12 at 16:17
$begingroup$
^^^ and in fact, the guys in the control room said after the crash, "well, it makes us the seventh nation to put an object on the Moon, then". @DarrelHoffman
$endgroup$
– Will Ness
Apr 12 at 16:17
|
show 2 more comments
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. One might discount it by a few hundred million for the five extra probes, but that's still easily at least thirty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered Apr 12 at 3:59
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,19142739
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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
);
);
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-do-they-say-that-israel-would-have-been-the-fourth-country-to-land-a-s%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. One might discount it by a few hundred million for the five extra probes, but that's still easily at least thirty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered Apr 12 at 3:59
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,19142739
$endgroup$
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. One might discount it by a few hundred million for the five extra probes, but that's still easily at least thirty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered Apr 12 at 3:59
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,19142739
$endgroup$
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. One might discount it by a few hundred million for the five extra probes, but that's still easily at least thirty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered Apr 12 at 3:59
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,19142739
$endgroup$
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. One might discount it by a few hundred million for the five extra probes, but that's still easily at least thirty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered Apr 12 at 3:59
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,19142739
edited Apr 13 at 3:19
answered Apr 12 at 3:59
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,19142739
answered Apr 12 at 3:59
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,19142739
answered Apr 12 at 3:59
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,19142739
4,19142739
add a comment |
add a comment |
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-do-they-say-that-israel-would-have-been-the-fourth-country-to-land-a-s%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
5
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Apr 12 at 3:46
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
Apr 12 at 6:33
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
Apr 12 at 9:30
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
Apr 12 at 10:53
4
$begingroup$
^^^ and in fact, the guys in the control room said after the crash, "well, it makes us the seventh nation to put an object on the Moon, then". @DarrelHoffman
$endgroup$
– Will Ness
Apr 12 at 16:17