[SeekAndFind]

Betcha this American Moon Lander costs 10 times more than the one made by India that successfully landed on the dark side of the moon.

[verum ago]

Betcha this American Moon Lander costs 10 times more than the one made by India that successfully landed on the dark side of the moon.

You got me wondering, so I looked it up:

They're actually surprisingly comparable: Chandraayan-3 cost ~$77 million, while Peregrine cost $79 million originally, which ballooned up to $108 million- but Peregrine also had more sensors embarked on it, and 2 rovers to Chandraayan-3's single rover.

And don't forget, Chandraayan-1 (an orbiter) ($116M corrected for inflation) failed less than halfway through its expected minimum mission length, and the Chandrayaan-2 lander (117.6M corrected for inflation) failed on descent and crashed.

I suspect that if NASA hadn't contracted this out to a private company, your suspicion would be absolutely correct (with the possible amendment of adding something like "and ended up 7 years behind schedule")

[9YearLurker]

India has 3X our population; but, as I understand it, the US has 50X their national debt.

[noiseman]

Betcha this American Moon Lander costs 10 times more than the one made by India that successfully landed on the dark side of the moon.

Well, give the NASA team a break. It’s difficult to succeed when you spend all day every day staring at your genitals, trying figure out what “gender” you are.