5 ms·

This is great! Success here would show how much is possible with $146MM and encourage others to invest in space exploration as well. India's space program, ISRO

This is great! Success here would show how much is possible with $146MM and encourage others to invest in space exploration as well. India's space program, ISRO, put a satellite into Mars orbit in 2014 for $73MM. Reuters article: https://in.reuters.com/article/space-exploration-india-moon-idINKCN1UH0WC https://in.reuters.com/article/space-exploration-india-moon-...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
T-A 7y ago
> Success here would show how much is possible with $146MM … when you're paying Indian salaries. I'm pretty sure that paying NASA, ESA or JAXA engineers less than 12k USD/year [1] would result in exactly 0 of them staying on the job. [1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/india-aerospace-engineering-salary-SRCH_IL.0,5_IN115_KO6,27.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/india-aerospace-engineeri...
- godelmachine 7y ago
  You sir, have conveniently chosen to ignore that any space vehicle launch program consists of gigantic amount of engineering and equipment costs. When ISRO says it took $146 mn to send Chandrayaan 2, it refers only to engineering costs and not personnel costs.
  - T-A 7y ago
    And engineering costs do not include labor? http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/theory-of-cost/engineering-cost-short-run-and-long-run-engineering-costs/5226 http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/theory-of-cost/engineerin...
- llampx 7y ago
  You can always outsource your rocket launches to India to benefit from these low, low costs :)
  - T-A 7y ago
    According to Table 4 in [1], a GSLV launch was $47 million in 2017, so a bit lower than e.g. a Falcon 9 launch ($61.2 million in the same table). Taking the $146 million quoted above at face value, that means 2/3 of Chandrayaan-2's cost was independent of launch cost. Let's say about $100 million. Another comment here is implying that those $100 million do not include labor. I find that hard to believe; it is (or should be) common knowledge that the bulk or aerospace project costs is labor [2], so it would make no sense to forgo standard accounting practice and only report what amounts to a bill of materials. But if we nevertheless assume that comment is correct, it would mean that you should at least double the estimated cost for developing something equivalent to Chandrayaan-2 at developed-country aerospace salaries. So you would be (optimistically) spending something like $200 million on the probe, and saving maybe $15 million out of a total cost ~ $250 million by launching it from India rather than e.g. the US. Once the added administration and logistics costs are taken into account, I wonder if you would be saving anything at all. [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-609 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-609 [2] Aerospace project management handbook (2017)
redpillor 7y ago
India Launches Chandrayaan-2 Moon Mission and Australia saw it on first try: https://www.facebook.com/ABCNorthWestQLD/photos/a.692957074051092/2904165002930277/ https://www.facebook.com/ABCNorthWestQLD/photos/a.6929570740... local Australian folks recorded 3rd stage footage.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

T-A 7y ago

> Success here would show how much is possible with $146MM … when you're paying Indian salaries. I'm pretty sure that paying NASA, ESA or JAXA engineers less than 12k USD/year [1] would result in exactly 0 of them staying on the job. [1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/india-aerospace-engineering-salary-SRCH_IL.0,5_IN115_KO6,27.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/india-aerospace-engineeri...

godelmachine 7y ago
You sir, have conveniently chosen to ignore that any space vehicle launch program consists of gigantic amount of engineering and equipment costs. When ISRO says it took $146 mn to send Chandrayaan 2, it refers only to engineering costs and not personnel costs.
- T-A 7y ago
  And engineering costs do not include labor? http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/theory-of-cost/engineering-cost-short-run-and-long-run-engineering-costs/5226 http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/theory-of-cost/engineerin...
llampx 7y ago
You can always outsource your rocket launches to India to benefit from these low, low costs :)
- T-A 7y ago
  According to Table 4 in [1], a GSLV launch was $47 million in 2017, so a bit lower than e.g. a Falcon 9 launch ($61.2 million in the same table). Taking the $146 million quoted above at face value, that means 2/3 of Chandrayaan-2's cost was independent of launch cost. Let's say about $100 million. Another comment here is implying that those $100 million do not include labor. I find that hard to believe; it is (or should be) common knowledge that the bulk or aerospace project costs is labor [2], so it would make no sense to forgo standard accounting practice and only report what amounts to a bill of materials. But if we nevertheless assume that comment is correct, it would mean that you should at least double the estimated cost for developing something equivalent to Chandrayaan-2 at developed-country aerospace salaries. So you would be (optimistically) spending something like $200 million on the probe, and saving maybe $15 million out of a total cost ~ $250 million by launching it from India rather than e.g. the US. Once the added administration and logistics costs are taken into account, I wonder if you would be saving anything at all. [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-609 https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-609 [2] Aerospace project management handbook (2017)

redpillor 7y ago

India Launches Chandrayaan-2 Moon Mission and Australia saw it on first try: https://www.facebook.com/ABCNorthWestQLD/photos/a.692957074051092/2904165002930277/ https://www.facebook.com/ABCNorthWestQLD/photos/a.6929570740... local Australian folks recorded 3rd stage footage.