ELI5: Why they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why...
For what reasons would an animal species NOT cross a *horizontal* land bridge?
"as much details as you can remember"
What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?
Did the UK government pay "millions and millions of dollars" to try to snag Julian Assange?
How to charge AirPods to keep battery healthy?
Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit
If my opponent casts Ultimate Price on my Phantasmal Bear, can I save it by casting Snap or Curfew?
Short story: man watches girlfriend's spaceship entering a 'black hole' (?) forever
Kerning for subscripts of sigma?
Is it ok to offer lower paid work as a trial period before negotiating for a full-time job?
Falsification in Math vs Science
The difference between dialogue marks
What is this business jet?
Why does the nucleus not repel itself?
Mathematics of imaging the black hole
Variable with quotation marks "$()"
Can there be female White Walkers?
How to add class in ko template in magento2
How much of the clove should I use when using big garlic heads?
Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)
What do these terms in Caesar's Gallic Wars mean?
How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?
How to translate "being like"?
How did passengers keep warm on sail ships?
ELI5: Why they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why they call it low cost?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhy did the Russians never land on the Moon?Would it have been possible to have sent the Space Shuttle around the Moon?Why does Pluto have a molten core and the Moon does not?Would an asteroid collision affect Moon's orbit, and what consequence would that have for Earth?Was there a Moon landing mission that the astronauts had to land by hand?Why not land Red Dragon on the Moon?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?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?
$begingroup$
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
1113
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
1113
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.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
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
1113
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
1113
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
1113
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
1113
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
1113
asked 2 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1113
1113
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.
1
$begingroup$
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
$begingroup$
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
$begingroup$
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
3,88142638
$endgroup$
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
3,88142638
$endgroup$
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
3,88142638
$endgroup$
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
3,88142638
$endgroup$
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
3,88142638
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,88142638
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,88142638
answered 2 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
3,88142638
3,88142638
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
1
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago