Indian mom just loves it on Mars, tweets fave holiday snap India’s cheap and cheerful Mars Orbiter Mission, Mangalyaan, has sent back its first images of the Red Planet just a day after successfully achieving orbit. The MOM craft, which naturally has its own Twitter account, tweeted its first image of the surface of Mars just a few hours ago. The view is nice up here. pic.twitter. …
After that massive flop a few years back, I thought Robert Zemeckis and Disney already discovered that Mars Didn't Need MOMs After All...
In all seriousness, $74m is incredibly cheap. It's undeniably true that they will be- to a significant extent- piggybacking on work and research that others have already done, and thus it's perhaps unfair to compare it with (e.g.) prior NASA missions. Nevertheless, doing something on that sort of budget is a pretty cool feat.
It's worth noting that the cost of the Americans' ludicrously expensive F-22 fighter program- 188 produced and no more planned for a total cost of $67 BILLION- works out at $412 MILLION *PER PLANE*.
Even NASA's "expensive" MAVEN was only $670m for the entire one-off thing, and viewed in this context, one starts to realise *that's* not a massive amount on the scheme of things.
Where are the kick-backs? Where are the massive profits for big corporations?
Where are the $7000 hammers, the $1000 screws and bolts?
Where are all the marketing and PR consultants?
This ain't the way it's done. You're utter cheapskates, and it's just not right. Stick to cooking the curry. You'll never make it in space exploration with such an attitude.
A lot of it is accounting differences.
This doesn't count salaries of most university and governemnt staff working on the project. We would count the entire grant and the 150% overhead the university charges. We would have to sub contract all the actual manufacturing and generally to a defense contractor who was the single bidder.The design would also have to be to a number of conflicting Nasa/DoD standards adding more cost.
Also this is the cost of the payload - the cost of Hubble included things like operating the Space Telescope Sceince Facility for 25years and the salaries (+ university overhead) for all the grad students and post-docs working on the data.
You think the imaging equipment is anything but a rounding error compared to what it takes to get something into orbit around another planet? I haven't looked at the science on board, but it's pretty likely that visible light imaging is not a high priority, it's just a low-res image snapped back to check comms, pre-calibration etc.
I understand the science was not the main goal, that has been made clear from the initial project press releases. That was exactly my point, perhaps greater investment in the science is where the additional costs go?
Much is being made of how frugal this mission is in comparison to others, yet I have no doubts whatsoever that it is reliant on the existing deep space comms infrastructure, cooperation with other space agencies and their assets ensuring the project their best chance of success .
As to AC's pure conjecture on the reasons behind the iffy resolution, lets hope so hey?
Again, all said without wishing to denigrate their fine achievement.
The MAVEN payload is about 50kgs. Mangalyaan's payload is about 16-18kgs. Yes, MOM is more lightweight, but it carries a decent payload, and performed a very elaborate process of getting there, using the Oberth effect to generate enough velocity to get into Mars transfer orbit (despite a couple of motor firing glitches) and subsequently make a very precise Mars orbit insertion on first attempt. Usually the second step doomed many Mars missions.
Go on then, you take some better pictures from a couple of hundred miles up, whilst travelling at tens of thousands of miles an hour*. It might also be worth pointing out that the Viking images were taken by the Viking Lander. It's just a teensy bit easier to take pictures of something when you're sat stationary on it.
* The orbital of the probe around Mars is elliptical varying from around 300 miles to 50,000 miles, according to *cough* the Mail Online (I feel dirty). I'm willing to bet that at that distance, and at the appropriate velocity required to maintain the orbit, any camera you might be able to buy at a reasonable price wouldn't take great pictures.
Pretty easy to take good photos from that sort of distance, with that sort of velocity. It's a question of payload weight - bigger lenses are heavier and more precise tracking equipment is also heavier.
The bigger the payload, the higher the costs. The point above stands - India's achievement is outstanding, but other more expensive missions were not a waste of money, they were doing much more.
The imager isn't a main science instrument it's just to confirm where the science instruments were pointing and to provide a check of any odd conditions. There are enough high res imaging surveys of Mars from much better orbits to make adding a massive camera pointless and expensive in payload, power and bandwidth.
In reality it's actually there to provide some PR friendly images to show the public - like the cameras fitted to the boosters by Nasa/SpaceX.
"MOM’s mission is to study the mineral composition of Mars from orbit and look for evidence of the presence of chemicals that are necessary for life on Earth, such as methane."
And there was me thinking that methane emissions were the *result* of life, not the precursor...
</pedant>
I would imagine that those employed by the Indian space agency, who if this project did not exist, would not be, and the Indian manufacturers, researchers and scientists that this benefits are actually quite pleased by it.
I'm also pretty sure that if this project didn't exist, none of the money spent on it would go to starving children anyway. Not that India doesn't have its problems, but I challenge you to point to a nation that doesn't have starving children in it. The Vatican doesn't count.
Please don't denigrate the achievements of a nation by naysaying, and waving and pointing at its shortcomings, unless you, personally, are going to do something about sorting out those shortcomings, as well as all of those of your own country.
(repost, with changes)
----------------
- 0 million : UK aid to India (2015, maybe)
- 22 million : luxury Yacht
- 26 million : burning man (2013)
- 40 million : Katie price wealth (reality tv)
- 60 million : low end private jet
- 65 million : Kim Kardashian wealth (reality tv)
- 74 million : Mars attempt India // Not just cheap labour but also the method.
- 110 million : London police budget
- 110 million : Sachin Tendulkar networth (cricket player)
- 140 million : (In)famous Gareth Bale transfer to Real Madrid.
- 175 million: Hollywood blockbuster cost
- 210 million: India Space Agency revenues // Its not just willy waving.
- 236 million: Trump Golf Course
- 350 million: A Boeing jet.
- 450 million: UK aid to India (2013)
- 500 million: India space budget (2013)
- 600 million : Bono networth
- 650 million: Burj-al-Arab
- 1,000 million : India Cricket revenue
- 1,500 million : Canada winter olympics
- 1,900 million : Commonwealth games India // Hmmm....
- 2,470 million: Mars Rover
- 5 billion: India aid to Africa! (one time?)
- 8 billion: BBC revenues.
- 13 billion: TCS revenue (IT outsourcing)
- 14 billion: London Olympic games.
- 16 billion: India Education/yr
- 16 billion: Lakshmi Mittal (Richest Londoner)
- 19 billion: India food subsidy budget
- 21 billion: Mukesh Ambani (Richest Indian)
- 34 billion: South Korea Defense budget/yr
- 38 billion: India Defense /yr
- 68 billion: India Tech exports
- 160 billion: Worldwide space market. // Prize
- 640 billion: US defense budget/yr
- 1,700 billion: India GDP/yr
----------------------------------------------
Complied this as a result of a debate during intial MoM launch, but never posted it. Posting here with some updates.. sources for all data is internet, so take them with a pinch of salt.
As far as the meaning of the aid goes, it's simply a way for nations to lubricate future trades and relations. Unless you are paying for a major portion of a nation's budget, you have no say on how they run their country (ie based on the aid). Think of it as 100 quid that your rich neighbour puts in your birthday envelop. Maybe he hopes to boink your mama in future, but that doesn't allow him to question how your house is run.
India invests MASSIVE amounts of its GDP in improving the state of its billions of impoverished citizens. A larger percentage than say the US or any European country even.
This kind of mission is an advertisement to the world. "Look here, we can do this! Maybe you can give some of those orders to our industry? We're not as expensive and can deliver good quality". It cost them 74 million. A tiny investment compared to the INSANE amount needed to even make a dent in the impoverishment of the BILLIONS in the country. And an investment that COULD land them some international manufacturing deals for its industry worth a multiple of that.
Just because they spend 74 million on this doesn't mean they AREN'T working on improving standards of living. Creating more jobs for the middle and upper class (ie engineers and the likes) means more people paying taxes (a large problem, the poor don't pay taxes so don't help the problem. A relative lack of middle and upper class means lower tax incomes).
When I first visited India in 1990 you could book an international phone call from a single city post office with 24hours notice. 10 years later in 2000 it had more Internet cafes and better cell service than I had in Silicon valley. 10 years after that it owns the international outsourcing/programming industry
If it had spent all that telecoms money on rice handouts it would be the same as Africa is today
I knew this would get posted somewhere in the thread and I think it's a tribute to people's respect for the Indian achievement that it has taken until now.
Downvote all you want but I grew up in a slum in Rochdale where we literally had no indoor plumbing, shared a toilet with other houses. A fuge number of people in India today would think "Luxshury!" to that since they have no toilet at all. Sorry Indian government but if you want respect fix that first, then you can go to Mars.
And yet while you were living in those conditions your government was spending money on developing nuclear power, its own space launcher, the first computers, jet fighters etc. If only it hadn't invested all that money on high tech research then Britain wouldn't be the industrial and technological leader it is today..... sorry my mistake.
Still Britain did learn its lesson and spent £10bn on ending homelessness in the capital rather than wasting it on a running and jumping show.
Yes India needs toilets more than a space program. It also needs toilets more than cellphone service or warplanes. Why don't you all ask Vodafone to quit India ? Or ask BAE not to sell weaponry to India ?
Oh wait, that just won't do. Whatever we do is ok as long as it lines your pocket. The trouble starts when we make you look inadequate. That's when the faux morality and affected concern for the poor comes out. Move along now. Whiny ex-colonials are boring.
India will likely reap more in the long term by selling satellite launching services to other nations than it spent. Also you need to consider the fact that the USA has plenty of ghettos and poverty - especially in states such as Louisiana, so you could just as easily make the same criticism of NASA.
India ARE to be congratulated. Well done for a first attempt! I'm sure the price paid is far less than the cost of nuclear weapons research.
As to the utility of MOM, at 13kg, I wouldn't expect much. Also I would think a Falcon 9 (at $50 million) could hurl 13kg to Mars, leaving $24 million for payload. Not a criticism, but we must maintain perspective.
Please define launch costs. Fuel, hardware, ground control, communications, launch facilities, tracking, etc?
If the all-inclusive cost is so little, are you implying $60 million were expended on a 13kg payload? Or are there other expenses involved?
No, I am not an accountant! Merely pedantic.
The $15M is what they charge commecially to launch something - they are doing very good business at that rate.
To put a 15kg science payload around mars meas lifting a lot more than that from the ground. The MOM craft was about 1.3T, of which about 60% was fuel, the rest is the booster engines needed to get it out of Earth's gravity, and into Mar's safely, the panels to provide enough power at that much further distance from the Sun and the communications feed.
If you want to meet some real bigoted morons you should try the BBC comments section on the mission. I've never seen the moderators so busy and given what they let through would make Nigel Farage blush (OK, that's a bit improbable, he doesn't look like he embarrasses easily) I hate to think what they blocked.
Oh, and congratulations India, not a bad result for a first shot at Mars (actually, hitting it is quite easy, it's just missing it that's difficult ;-)
Well at least one of those was because your comment was directly commenting on getting down voted rather than for cheering on India with this
I was remarking on my comment from yesterday, here, which consists entirely of a short statement congratulating India, but which somehow managed to collect a singular downvote. Normally being down-voted wouldn't bother me, but I am at a loss to understand why someone would down-vote this.
Ok yeah, see your point there. If it'd been a reply I wouldn't have bothered, I just didn't see the other comment. If it's any consolation I've upvoted both since you were replying to something specific and the first comment was reasonable
> which consists entirely of a short statement congratulating India
I'm not the down-voter, but perhaps someone felt your comment it was too short and it's purpose was to gather votes rather than add anything of value to the discussion.
Putting satellites in an orbit around Mars with a better record than anyone else for a fraction of the price; sounds like they can make quite a bit of money if they can keep it up, they might even be able to turn a pretty decent profit on doing so. I assume that a lot of the cost reduction is scrapping a bunch of redundant systems and aren't really needed when there are lives on the line, besides, they can throw 6 of them up there and 5 can fail and still come out ahead (and that's not counting the valuable knowledge we'd gain from the failure).
It makes me so happy to know that we (humans) can send a satellite to another planet millions of miles away for less than the price of a movie. And that isn't even thinking about the math and science that went into to learning how to do this.
I seem to remember reading that the cost was largely down to the wide scale use of off the shelf technical parts rather than the NASA method of R&D to customise a mission and invent new technologies.
If this is the case then it would be a lot cheaper, but perhaps a bit more limiting, than other nations efforts.
Still, getting to mars is nothing to be sniffed at but does question how much R&D was done by India for this achievment as there has been great play made about how this will benefit their country.
Anyhow, well done India. The human race needs to be out there.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
