4 ms·
$1M was the amount they spent on the lander. If I recall correctly, they got a ride to the moon for free. Delivering that amount of mass to the moon is worth O(
by pclmulqdq 2y ago
$1M was the amount they spent on the lander. If I recall correctly, they got a ride to the moon for free. Delivering that amount of mass to the moon is worth O($10M). It seems incentives were not properly aligned for this group.
I should also point out that you can fly a scientific mission on a 1U cubesat for ~$100k all in (including launch cost), which puts it in a very different regime.
- ricardobeat 2y agoThe first moon landing cost $300 billion+ in today's dollars.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoYeah, this is not that, though. We know how to get to the moon, and a small probe is lighter than 3 people plus a vehicle that allows them to make a return trip. This launch, which had a few other payloads, too, reportedly cost NASA $62 million.
- adastra22 2y agoGetting to the moon is vastly more expensive. 40x is the multiplier that is typically used in the industry. Prior to cancellation, NASA spent $433M on the VIPER lander + rover--NOT inclusive of launch costs. $1m is crazy cheap.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago$1M is not the full price of this mission. $1M is the price of the lander only. They were given a ride on a rocket whose total bill was $62.5 million (just for the launch, but spread among 4 missions). When you spend $1 million but get $10 million of stuff for free, it's not really a "$1 million project."
- adastra22 2y agoThe $433M number I quoted was for the hardware only too. Apples to apples. I worked NASA planetary science before. $1m is CRAZY cheap.