ELI5: Why do they say that Israel would have been the fourth country to land a spacecraft on the Moon and why...
How should I replace vector<uint8_t>::const_iterator in an API?
How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?
Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two?
Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?
I could not break this equation. Please help me
Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?
Can the prologue be the backstory of your main character?
What are these Gizmos at Izaña Atmospheric Research Center in Spain?
How to copy the contents of all files with a certain name into a new file?
Finding the path in a graph from A to B then back to A with a minimum of shared edges
Why can't devices on different VLANs, but on the same subnet, communicate?
How can I define good in a religion that claims no moral authority?
Can a 1st-level character have an ability score above 18?
Single author papers against my advisor's will?
Multiple regression results help
how can a perfect fourth interval be considered either consonant or dissonant?
Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?
What can I do if neighbor is blocking my solar panels intentionally?
How do you keep chess fun when your opponent constantly beats you?
Take groceries in checked luggage
Why is superheterodyning better than direct conversion?
Relations between two reciprocal partial derivatives?
Python - Fishing Simulator
Why did all the guest students take carriages to the Yule Ball?
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?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm 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 yesterday
Nathan Tuggy
4,16142739
asked 2 days ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
18115
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.
$endgroup$
|
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 yesterday
Nathan Tuggy
4,16142739
asked 2 days ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
18115
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.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
^^^ 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
yesterday
|
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 yesterday
Nathan Tuggy
4,16142739
asked 2 days ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
18115
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 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 yesterday
Nathan Tuggy
4,16142739
asked 2 days ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
18115
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.
edited yesterday
Nathan Tuggy
4,16142739
asked 2 days ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
18115
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.
edited yesterday
Nathan Tuggy
4,16142739
edited yesterday
Nathan Tuggy
4,16142739
edited yesterday
Nathan Tuggy
4,16142739
4,16142739
asked 2 days ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
18115
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 days ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
18115
asked 2 days ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
18115
18115
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.
5
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
^^^ 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
yesterday
|
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
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
^^^ 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
yesterday
5
5
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 days ago
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 days ago
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
yesterday
8
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
yesterday
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
yesterday
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
^^^ 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
yesterday
$begingroup$
^^^ 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
yesterday
|
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 2 days ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,16142739
$endgroup$
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
});
}
});
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-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 2 days ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,16142739
$endgroup$
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 2 days ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,16142739
$endgroup$
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 2 days ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,16142739
$endgroup$
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 2 days ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,16142739
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,16142739
answered 2 days ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,16142739
answered 2 days ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,16142739
4,16142739
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-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
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
yesterday
8
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
^^^ 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
yesterday