There are good, thorough answers that can not be posted to the question Time taken for moon landing because the question is currently closed.

This is because @JanDoggen voted to close as duplicate and the OP (new user, first question) accepted this judgement. Both of these are unfortunate:

  1. Those answers simply do not answer this question (the reason for the long-ish time for Chandrayaan-2 to reach the moon has very little overlap with the reason that Chang'e-4 took so long. Had @JanDoggen looked in to Chandrayaan-2 and Chang'e-4 this would have been clear.
  2. The new user trusted the judgement of a single user, and concurred with the single vote to close as duplicate. Unfortunately the new user may not have known that this results in an insta-closing of the question. That's why the close vote message says

    marked as duplicate by Jan Doggen, Community♦ Jul 3 at 7:16

    Community♦ is the user listed for actions not easily attributable to individual users, and the new user with low rep can not normally close questions (except their own) so their name is not listed. (see https://space.stackexchange.com/users/-1/community)


  1. This authoritative-sounding yet unsourced answer with 6 up votes by our first 100k user is at least misleading and inappropriate.

    More recent missions use an ion engine, which means the spacecraft can be a lot lighter and needs a smaller launcher. The drawback is that ion engines have tiny amounts of thrust, so the flight takes longer.

    The moon missions of the 1960-70s were done with brute force and needed large, expensive rockets.

    While these sentences may not be factually false by themselves when taken out of context, Chandrayaan-2 does not have ion engines! So this ion-based answer has nothing to do with the question.

I've heavily lobbied for 5 re-open votes in order to write a good, fact-based, well-sourced and informative answer to this question, which it deserves, without luck. At one point there were 4 re-open votes, but they have been timing out(?)

  • At this point I'm asking for moderator intervention. Can this question please be re-opened so that it can be properly answered?

  • I'm also curious if there is any way that new users can be warned before they self-insta-close their own question without knowing the concequences.

  • Finally I'll urge people to please be more careful before throwing close votes around. The idea that it takes 4 more so you don't have to be careful is obviously dead wrong in this case, and a first close vote frequently brings additional close votes that may research even less (trusting the judgement of the first close-voter) and may sometimes be simply reflexive close-voting.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Voted to reopen but the votes are still only at 3. Can't you just flag the question for moderator intervention, pointing to this meta? $\endgroup$
    – user10509
    Jul 12 '19 at 9:28
  • $\begingroup$ @JanDoggen Thank you! I figure that the moderators read newly-posted meta questions fairly promptly anyway (they also appear promptly in the Pod Bay) so flagging might be redundant. It's been over a week so there's no need for immediate response. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Jul 12 '19 at 9:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It looks like it did finally get enough reopen votes on its own, though I would have reopened too. $\endgroup$
    – called2voyage Mod
    Jul 15 '19 at 12:40
  • $\begingroup$ @called2voyage yep! I plan to add an answer to that effect in a few more days if nobody else posts anything that I can click accept on. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Jul 15 '19 at 12:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .