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 InWhy 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?
Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)
What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation
What is the most efficient way to store a numeric range?
What information about me do stores get via my credit card?
What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?
Is bread bad for ducks?
Is Cinnamon a desktop environment or a window manager? (Or both?)
The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG 1397BC53640DB551
Keeping a retro style to sci-fi spaceships?
How to quickly solve partial fractions equation?
What is preventing me from simply constructing a hash that's lower than the current target?
Do ℕ, mathbbN, BbbN, symbbN effectively differ, and is there a "canonical" specification of the naturals?
Is there a way to generate a uniformly distributed point on a sphere from a fixed amount of random real numbers?
Geography at the pixel level
Finding the area between two curves with Integrate
Variable with quotation marks "$()"
What can I do if neighbor is blocking my solar panels intentionally
Are Newtonian Mechanics considered to be 'falsified'?
Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?
Match Roman Numerals
Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?
How much of the clove should I use when using big garlic heads?
What could be the right powersource for 15 seconds lifespan disposable giant chainsaw?
Taking the derivative of a differential equation
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 InWhy 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 1 hour ago
Nathan Tuggy
4,03942639
asked 7 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1364
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 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 1 hour ago
Nathan Tuggy
4,03942639
asked 7 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1364
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
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Usually it is claimed that Israel wanted to be the fourth to soft land a vessel. There are two reasons to omit the soft, either because you are a bit sloppy or because the author doesn't consider crashes to be landings. In this context, it is clear that the author meant to exclude crashes (which the impact of an impactor like Chandrayaan-1 is).
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
5 mins 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 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 1 hour ago
Nathan Tuggy
4,03942639
asked 7 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1364
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 1 hour ago
Nathan Tuggy
4,03942639
asked 7 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1364
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 1 hour ago
Nathan Tuggy
4,03942639
asked 7 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1364
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 1 hour ago
Nathan Tuggy
4,03942639
edited 1 hour ago
Nathan Tuggy
4,03942639
edited 1 hour ago
Nathan Tuggy
4,03942639
4,03942639
asked 7 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1364
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 7 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1364
asked 7 hours ago
Vladislav GladkikhVladislav Gladkikh
1364
1364
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
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Usually it is claimed that Israel wanted to be the fourth to soft land a vessel. There are two reasons to omit the soft, either because you are a bit sloppy or because the author doesn't consider crashes to be landings. In this context, it is clear that the author meant to exclude crashes (which the impact of an impactor like Chandrayaan-1 is).
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
5 mins 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
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Usually it is claimed that Israel wanted to be the fourth to soft land a vessel. There are two reasons to omit the soft, either because you are a bit sloppy or because the author doesn't consider crashes to be landings. In this context, it is clear that the author meant to exclude crashes (which the impact of an impactor like Chandrayaan-1 is).
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
5 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
4 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Usually it is claimed that Israel wanted to be the fourth to soft land a vessel. There are two reasons to omit the soft, either because you are a bit sloppy or because the author doesn't consider crashes to be landings. In this context, it is clear that the author meant to exclude crashes (which the impact of an impactor like Chandrayaan-1 is).
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Usually it is claimed that Israel wanted to be the fourth to soft land a vessel. There are two reasons to omit the soft, either because you are a bit sloppy or because the author doesn't consider crashes to be landings. In this context, it is clear that the author meant to exclude crashes (which the impact of an impactor like Chandrayaan-1 is).
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
5 mins ago
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
5 mins 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 6 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,03942639
$endgroup$
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-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. That's nearly forty times the pricetag on Israel's project.
answered 6 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,03942639
$endgroup$
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 6 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,03942639
$endgroup$
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 6 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,03942639
$endgroup$
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 6 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,03942639
answered 6 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,03942639
answered 6 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,03942639
answered 6 hours ago
Nathan TuggyNathan Tuggy
4,03942639
4,03942639
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
1
$begingroup$
It's a good point you make. Presumably they are talking about soft landers, not impactors, though.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Note that the Israeli attempt is not being counted as a "landing". This implies that crashes are not counted.
$endgroup$
– Ben Voigt
4 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
and Ben Voigt's point is exactly why the indian mission is not counted here
$endgroup$
– Hobbamok
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Usually it is claimed that Israel wanted to be the fourth to soft land a vessel. There are two reasons to omit the soft, either because you are a bit sloppy or because the author doesn't consider crashes to be landings. In this context, it is clear that the author meant to exclude crashes (which the impact of an impactor like Chandrayaan-1 is).
$endgroup$
– Polygnome
33 mins ago
$begingroup$
Isn't the answer here given by the keyword, "land"?
$endgroup$
– Nij
5 mins ago