Israeli Group To Attempt Moon Landing 150
cold fjord writes: "NDTV reports, 'Israel plans to do what only the world's biggest countries have so far managed to do: land an unmanned spacecraft on the moon ... only Russia, the U.S. and China have soft landed on the moon, and India hard landed its tri-colour using the moon impact probe in 2008 ... The washing machine-sized spacecraft that weighs 121 kilograms is being readied by a not-for-profit venture called SpaceIL. ... The Israeli lunar probe had its genesis after the $30 million Google Lunar X Prize was announced as a competition which challenged non-state-owned space agencies to land on the moon, send back photos, and move 500 meters on the surface of the moon. About two dozen global teams are racing to win the prize- SpaceIL reckons it's in pole position. ... ex-NASA engineer Yonatan Winetraub and two of his friends conceived of the spacecraft in 2010 ... then used a Facebook page to promote the dream. Today, the dream has matured into a $36 million mission with 20 full time employees and 250 volunteers. ... Around 40,000 school students have been associated with this project.' Further details are available here."
Jews in Space! (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re:More Jews in Space! (Score:2)
http://www.evcomics.com/2009/0... [evcomics.com]
Re:Bibi in Space! (Score:2)
(Warning: Possibly anti-Semitic content)
http://www.evcomics.com/2012/0... [evcomics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw... [tvtropes.org]
Bizarrely, they don't mention Serenity.
Say the Muslims got there first... (Score:4, Funny)
Someone convince them the Muslims got there first, and are living in craters... then we'll get loads of colonists on the moon in no time.
Good luck (Score:1)
Let's wish the first Israeli moon probe a better landing than the first Israeli astronaut.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that, and they are working to put another astronaut in space as well. [thejc.com]
What people are forgetting... (Score:3, Insightful)
Going to the moon isn't merely a curiosity or a scientific achievement. It's a statement to the world that you were able to accurately land a payload on a target more than 350,000 km away. If you can do that with a rocket that leaves near-Earth orbit, it means you can do it with one that does not leave Earth orbit.
In other words, moon landings are how you tell the world you have ICBMs (or at least the ability to make them) without the public throwing a fit about it.
Re:What people are forgetting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting a satellite into a predetermined orbit proves the same thing, without the added expense of going all the way to the moon...
Re:What people are forgetting... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic... there is little difference between Sputnik & Apollo 11.
Both were based largely on the same principals & sciences... only while the latter was not only a lot more expensive & complicated, also stands as greater proof of ones technological abilities.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic... there is little difference between Sputnik & Apollo 11.
As far as demonstrating a capacity for deploying an ICBM (which is what is being considered here), there wasn't any.
Once you can put a booster into a predetermined orbit, and release a payload at a precise point, you essentially have the ability to deliver a warhead to any point on the planet.
The additional technologies involved in deep space travel/navigation, long term thermal and power management, astronaut life support, or the ability to soft-land on the moon and lift off again are irrelevant to lobbin
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What people are forgetting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? This garbage again? India launches a probe to Mars and the Luddites scream "IT'S AN ICBM!!" Now Israel. Utter stupidity. Do you think that generals in Israel and India do not talk to their counterparts in Pakistan and Iran? Is this actually a surprise to anyone who has been paying any attention AT ALL to the advancement of aerospace science over the last half a century? Targeting systems aren't even considered high-tech any more, you could program an Arduino board and a GPS receiver to do it.
Here's a headline for you: SpaceX and Virgin Galactic Can Produce ICBMs! Run And Hide!
Frelling idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What people are forgetting... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe, just maybe, it's a scientific accomplishment that a technologically advanced nation would like to achieve. They don't have to land on the moon to remind the other nations in the Middle East that this probably isn't the best time to start another pogrom.
Why are they doing it? (Score:1)
Or maybe, just maybe, it's a scientific accomplishment that a technologically advanced nation would like to achieve. They don't have to land on the moon to remind the other nations in the Middle East that this probably isn't the best time to start another pogrom.
They don't have to, but it's a very clear message, from a sometimes-aggressive and presumed nuclear nation.
There are basically three reasons to do it. (1) It's fucking cool. (2) It's a message to their enemies that they are capable of building ICBMs and putting their nukes anywhere on the planet. (3) It will be useful in domestic political campaigns.
Reason (1) is the best one, but it is exceptionally rare for countries to fund things for reason (1). (2) and/or (3) are FAR more likely.
Re:Why are they doing it? (Score:5, Insightful)
"sometimes-aggressive" as in Israel occasionally have to push back against the surrounding countries that want to finish what Hitler started.
Re: (Score:3)
well... (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe ... the ... author ... should ... try ... writing ... an ... article ... in ... full ... sentences
Re:well... (Score:5, Funny)
He's just channelling his inner Shatner.
Re: (Score:2)
But then how will everyone know that he's just blindly copy-pasted a couple of paragraphs from the ohhhh nevermind.
Re: (Score:2)
Relocating the Palestinians .. (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The comment right above, about relocating Palestinians to the moon was modded funny.
The comment right below, about relocating Israeli settlers to the moon was modded troll.
Can we meta-mod the mods?
Re: (Score:2)
The comment right above, about relocating Palestinians to the moon was modded funny. The comment right below, about relocating Israeli settlers to the moon was modded troll.
Can we meta-mod the mods?
Maybe we need a funny troll mod that equates to zero karma.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly a Good idea (Score:1, Troll)
(Why am I imagine a mash up between Gil Scott Heron [youtu.be] and Mel Brooks?
Re: (Score:1)
How uncivilized! Lobbing rockets at the people living in the houses you built, and then were forced out of by guns and tanks. Clearly, being evicted from your ancestral homes by force (in violation of international law) is nothing to get angry about. No decent human would be outraged at having their country occupied by foreigners who regularly imprison and torture dissidents, while blockading normal international trade, resulting in frequent severe lack of access to basic food and medicine.
Re: (Score:1)
You really need to learn some history... and law.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com] for a start.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, so you're ok with arming the American Indians, then, right? Because that's EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM until about a century or so ago.
Re: (Score:2)
You're also missing some history [wikipedia.org] --- you do realize that the 1949 borders are not generally the territory under dispute? That Israel has done a few things since then with regard to stealing territory and imposing perpetual occupations?
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the Palestinians had a chance to negotiate a peace that would have recovered territory when Labor was in power, but Arafat found it much more comfortable to be a leader in exile than to take a chance on peace. As Abba Eban said, "the Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance".
Re: (Score:2)
It's not Israel "stealing" territory and imposing perpetual occupation. It's the unwillingess of the so-called allies of the Palestinians to actually end the various wars they have started.
Egypt got it's territory back as soon as they made peace with Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
Admittedly moving all the Israelis to the moon would make them a lot harder to hit with 10 dollar rocket attacks...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hmmm [nytimes.com]
I don't mean to belittle the will to do so... (Score:1)
But this has long since ceased to be any sort of technical challenge or accomplishment.
Putting a lander on the moon (or, even, for that matter, a human) is not much of a technical challenge, insofar as needing to do anything other than learn how to properly use complex (but well-known) technology.
There's a whole raft of small aerospace companies (of which SpaceX is merely the best known) with funding in the low millions than can produces a lunar lander for you within 6 months of a go-ahead. And buildin
Re:I don't mean to belittle the will to do so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? How many things have *YOU* soft-landed on the moon?
Re: (Score:3)
Wish I had some mod points to rate you up... that was the first thing I wondered. I mean, landing on the moon is SO easy, anybody can stick a firecracker on a tin can and do it.
Re: (Score:2)
But this has long since ceased to be any sort of technical challenge or accomplishment.
Putting a lander on the moon (or, even, for that matter, a human) is not much of a technical challenge, insofar as needing to do anything other than learn how to properly use complex (but well-known) technology.
The U.S. can't rebuild Saturn V rockets. Hell it can't even put someone into low earth orbit.
Space is still hard.
Flying to the moon might turn out to be easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when you consider that most of your neighbors (if not all) belong to a religion that forbids them from making peace with anybody who doesn't share their religion.
Which religion were you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Which religion were you referring to?
The one that advocates global jihad and a caliphate.
It's like the Tea Party but with different hats.
Keep drinking the koolaid and spouting that hasbara.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation very much needed. Are you talking about the conquest of Canaan? Maybe in that specific context, but definitely not "forbidding any peace," as they settled in afterward and were in fact discouraged from allying themselves with other nations, which would tend to push them towards a more defensive stance I would imagine.
As far as I am aware, salvation in Christianity has NEVER been dependent on killing anyone, even in the Old Testament.
Re: (Score:2)
(Okay, yes, it wasn't actually Christianity in the Old Testament; it was Judaism. You know what I mean.)
Re: (Score:2)
well if that jerk would just keep his dog off my yard...
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just leave this here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Strat
Moon Nazis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh oh - What about the Nazis hiding out up there on the Moon? This can't end well...
Exactly. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Iron Sky
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt10... [imdb.com]
The parachute won't work (Score:2)
Jews in Outer Space (Score:2)
"Israel Plans".... huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up because there is a HUGE difference between a small group and a state doing this.
The washing machine-sized spacecraft that weighs 121 kilograms is being readied by a not-for-profit venture called SpaceIL which operates out of a small non-descript office donated to it by Tel Aviv University.
Launch date? (Score:2)
next question in the Knesset.... (Score:1)
...so could this "lunar rocket" be "accidentally" targeted at Palestine?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if it fell over before lift off
But... (Score:2)
Is the moon kosher???
A colony? (Score:2)
This would be really great, the first step towards an Israeli colony on the moon. This ought to give them enough room, without being shoulder-to-shoulder with hostile neighbors.
Will they plant a flag... (Score:2)
...or erect expandable walls around the landing site?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe from the US citizens not the the US gov't. Only 10% of funds can come from a government source to eligible for the Lunar X prize.
Re:and where do they get this money? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe from the US citizens not the the US gov't. Only 10% of funds can come from a government source to eligible for the Lunar X prize.
One thing about Israel, they've a long track record of finding dirt cheap ways to do things the US government/military or such like to shovel billions of dollars at.
Re: (Score:1)
One thing about Israel, they've a long track record of finding dirt cheap ways to do things the US government/military or such like to shovel billions of dollars at.
But still not as cheap as private organizations. I did some free consulting for a group of people in San Jose that are competing for the Lunar X Prize. Their lander weighs 1kg, and is about the size and dimensions of a quart (liter) carton of milk.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I see SpaceIL is a private group.
Do you think that other groups lander will be able to make the 500m trip?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think that other groups lander will be able to make the 500m trip?
Their plan is to land in one of the "seas" that are relatively smooth. The wheels have a diameter bigger than the body, so the robot can move as easily when inverted as when right side up. It has gone more than 500m when tested in the Mojave Desert, and that is with six times lunar gravity, and half the sunlight intensity. The last time I spoke to them, their biggest concern was not meeting the requirements, but that someone else would beat them to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks.
It will be fascinating to see how it all plays out.
Re: (Score:2)
But still not as cheap as private organizations.
Wasn't it Israelis who fixed Intel after Intel got broken with that P4 thingy?
I did some free consulting for a group of people in San Jose that are competing for the Lunar X Prize. Their lander weighs 1kg, and is about the size and dimensions of a quart (liter) carton of milk.
That's mighty nice of them, but there is such a thing as fixed costs. Even though going from one ton to 100 kg is very much worth it, going from 100 kg to 1 kg probably likely won't save you nearly *that* much. There's also the issue of mission objectives, reliability etc. (Is the thing supposed to just land on the Moon and drive around, or do we want to, say, drill a bit?)
Please try to avoid spreading misinformation (Score:5, Informative)
The US gives Israel about 3 billion a year in financial aid, and Israel can only use this money to buy military equipment back from the US.
Israel's defense budget is about 15 billion a year.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Israel gets a good chunk of direct aid from the US (Classified as military aid, so the pro-Israeli Republicans can cut foreign aid to zero without touching Israel) and indirect aid (the semi-implicit security guaranty).
The point being without this aid, Israel may not have enough free resources to do something like this. Or maybe it is to remind everybody that the nuclear tipped missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems rather overkill as the class of rocket (and associated tech) required to land on the moon is far more than what it would take launch any sort of weapon tipped missile launched from Israeli territory... assuming likely targets... unless you are suspecting they are planning on bombing the British or Madagascar. ...and this aside from the Israeli use of retrograde orbits (and the greater fuel costs) for their space program.
Re: (Score:2)
The point being without this aid, Israel may not have enough free resources to do something like this.
It's not a government effort, and the $36 million cost isn't even as much as some of the fighter planes they fly, which comes out of their tax dollars. Obviously there is enough resources for it. It is a relative pittance.
Or maybe it is to remind everybody that the nuclear tipped missiles.
Do you really think that any of Israel's enemies is going to forget their armed forces and arms?
Re: (Score:3)
Such money questions are improper, since they declared themselves non-profit - isn't that inoculation enough? (One wonders how one might plan to turn a profit on a one-way robot ship trip. Sponsorship stickers?)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Congratulations. I was wondering where the first anti-Israel comment would come in. Nice job.
Re: (Score:1)
Congratulations. I was wondering where the first anti-Israel comment would come in. Nice job.
That's not anti-Israel. It's a fact that Israel gets a lot of funding from the U.S., rightly or wrongly. It would only feel anti-Israel if you were ashamed of the fact.
Re:and where do they get this money? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's anti-Israel in that the story about a private group putting together a moon mission instantly morphs into "those Jews are using our money".
Re: (Score:2)
The posters above didn't say "anti-Semitic," they said "anti-Israel." Please don't confuse the two (as murdocj is attempting to do by shifting from the issue of government versus private funds to "those Jews").
Re:How long until (Score:5, Funny)
moon colonies?
That would be moon "settlements" - Israel doesn't colonize, citizen.
Re:Here come the rednecks (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I find it somewhat sad that individual groups of people are all trying to accomplish the same thing or things which have been accomplished by humanity previously. What I'm saying is that I wish, rather, that the entire world would unite efforts in furthering human space-exploration technologies instead of countries keeping these "secrets" to themselves and ultimately slowing everything down from what they could be if we had one major, united world effort.
I suppose a lot of that behavior originates from from exactly what you point out in your post — though I do not understand said behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Here come the rednecks (Score:5, Interesting)
Individual groups of people all trying to accomplish the same thing or things is absolutely essential to get stuff done. It motivates people to focus and work hard on the problem, because they know that others are working hard too and they will likely reach similar quality and are progressing fast. The competition between people means competition between solutions, which allows the soundest solutions to prevail (up to exceptions).
Competition can be friendly, especially if you are not too emotionally invested, and that's great especially for the people involved. Unfriendly competition is still great in the long run even though it introduces redundancies. The space race gave a big surge to the technological progress. Sport competitions give many athletes (or chess players or whoever) an incentive to improve. Computer Go programs evolved rapidly recently also thanks to competition. Recent Debian discussions about their next init system gave massive boost to openrc development.
Without competition, people are lazy and slack, since any effort is not worth it! Competition is awesome!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, but that's only one tiny part of the space race --- America's the clear leader if you look at the big milestones, instead of just cherry-picking one isolated mission. Like, first satellite in orbit [wikipedia.org] --- oops, ignore that. How about first human in space [wikipedia.org] --- aww, shit; well they aren't really in space unless they can do the first spacewalk [wikipedia.org] --- dang. Well, the free and equal US at least got the first woman in space [wikipedia.org]... fooey. Well, near-earth is easy stuff anyway; how about first to reach another planet [wikipedia.org]? D
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is?
Re: (Score:3)
His point is that this "We're #1" hubris is a bit misplaced when it was the Russians that got just about every single first in the space race. Year the moon landing was slick and the joyride on the surface in a rover with a driver's seat was kinda cool, but don't go around saying America was first in everything.
This complacency is going to be America's undoing, and the standard racist /. reaction to every non-American space venture is just a symptom of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. So here's a question: it's 2014, not 1965. Which space program would you rather have: the USA's, China's, or Russia's? Which one is having the most success *right now*? Which one is roving Mars? Orbiting Saturn? Exploring interstellar space? Heading to Pluto? Would you really trade even up for Russia's Soyuz? Because it seems like that's about what they have going right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. So here's a question: it's 2014, not 1965. Which space program would you rather have: the USA's, China's, or Russia's? Which one is having the most success *right now*? Which one is roving Mars? Orbiting Saturn? Exploring interstellar space? Heading to Pluto? Would you really trade even up for Russia's Soyuz? Because it seems like that's about what they have going right now.
Only one way for thee and me to get into space, and that's Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. So here's a question: it's 2014, not 1965. Which space program would you rather have: the USA's, China's, or Russia's? Which one is having the most success *right now*? Which one is roving Mars? Orbiting Saturn? Exploring interstellar space? Heading to Pluto? Would you really trade even up for Russia's Soyuz? Because it seems like that's about what they have going right now.
Only one way for thee and me to get into space, and that's Russia.
And China of course. India may well be next.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Russia plus 20 million dollars. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Russia plus 20 million dollars. Good luck with that.
It's called capitalism. Something the USA doesn't have (you do have corporatism though, like 1930s Germany)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that's only one tiny part of the space race --- America's the clear leader if you look at the big milestones, instead of just cherry-picking one isolated mission. Like, first satellite in orbit [wikipedia.org] --- oops, ignore that. How about first human in space [wikipedia.org] --- aww, shit; well they aren't really in space unless they can do the first spacewalk [wikipedia.org] --- dang. Well, the free and equal US at least got the first woman in space [wikipedia.org]... fooey. Well, near-earth is easy stuff anyway; how about first to reach another planet [wikipedia.org]? Darn, but first to touch another planet [wikipedia.org]... well, first to soft-land on another planet [wikipedia.org]... shit. OK, first sample-return from outside earth [wikipedia.org]... err, let's focus on what's really important in the space race...
USA Number One! USA! USA! USA!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
GGWP rest of the world.
You Are Cherry Picking (Score:5, Informative)
Let's look at the subject in more detail. First satellite, first human, first successful lunar mission -- clearly the Soviets.
After that:
First successful mission to another planet: Mariner 2 flyby of Venus, 1962, USA. Your listing of Venera 1 as the "first to reach another planet" neglects to mention that the spacecraft failed before it got there.
First successful mission to Mars: Mariner 4, 1964, USA.
First communications satellites: passive, Echo I, 1960, USA; active, Courier 1B, USA.
First spacecraft rendezvous in orbit: Geminis 6 and 7, 1965, USA.
First spacecraft docking in orbit: Gemini 8, 1966, USA.
First manned spacecraft beyond low earth orbit: Apollo 8, 1968, USA
First manned spacecraft in lunar orbit: Apollo 8, 1968, USA
First spacecraft to orbit another planet: Mariner 9, Nov 1971, USA
First mission beyond the inner solar system: Pioneer 10, 1973, USA
First flyby of Jupiter: Pioneer 10, 1973, USA
There are many others.
Now let's examine some of the Soviet space firsts:
First soft lander on the Moon: 3 Feb 1966, Luna 9, USSR, a success by any definition, sent back pictures, operated for 3 days on lunar surface
compared to:, Surveyor 1, first USA soft lander, landed 14 July 1966, operated for nearly 6 months on the lunar surface
First soft lander on Mars: Mars 3, Dec 1971, USSR, operated for 14.5 seconds on the surface, compared to Viking 1, first USA Mars lander, July 1976, operated for 6 years on the surface.
So the story that the USSR was the clear leader in early space exploration is clearly false. Both nations had impressive 'firsts', anyone who doesn't acknowledge the accomplishments of both has poor knowledge of the subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: they're going to spend $36M of other people's money to win a $30M prize for themselves. You don't think the rocket scientists running this are footing the bill themselves, do you? Or that a lot of the money they're spending is going to strangers? If you want to question the financial wisdom of this venture, you might want to look at the people doing more of the paying and less of the getting paid side of the equation. That said, many space ventures have been more about dick waving than financial
Re: (Score:2)
A pity you couldn't substitute "prestige" for "dick waving" and "space program" for "space dick."
Re: (Score:3)
Apologies if poking fun at the motivations for private space exploration annoys people like yourself lacking in "prestige" due to having a small "space program."
Re: (Score:2)
Well done, I knew you could do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to examine the definition of "not-for-profit"--either the organization in question, or their detractors. I'm not sure which.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Specifically Hollywood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
We all knew it was coming...