5 ms·

"$82 million" mission? That budget doesn't even cover the fuel cost for a rover. Production of Pu-238 for the rover has been estimated at over $90 million, this

by antr 14y ago

"$82 million" mission? That budget doesn't even cover the fuel cost for a rover. Production of Pu-238 for the rover has been estimated at over $90 million, this does not include planning and starting costs. Add to that the fuel for the launch vehicle; and fuel for the the cruise stage. I can't trust this article.

arethuza 14y ago
Really? I'd have thought that about the cheapest thing about a launch would be the fuel. The price per kg of LOX, LH2 etc. all seem fairly low to me, a quick search gives: http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxlh2.htm http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxlh2.htm
_delirium 14y ago
That does seem ambitiously cheap, but it's at least not orders of magnitude off. NASA currently has a call where they're taking bids for a low-cost interplanetary mission, with bids capped at $425m plus launch costs: http://www.space.com/11593-nasa-planetary-missions-shortlist-2016-launch.html http://www.space.com/11593-nasa-planetary-missions-shortlist... If you take into account cheaper labor, I could imagine India coming in considerably lower than that, though I'm not sure how much lower. They could probably also save some money by using existing, already-proven technology, e.g. by purchasing some ex-Soviet designs and equipment rather than developing all custom hardware+software. That said, I would be very surprised if this launches on-budget and on-schedule.
- HannibalLecter 14y ago
  As someone who occasionally outsources to India, you've narrowed this article to something tangible, and you've brought this whole discussion into focus. India is obviously going to take this route and they will get their mission without the huge expense of fuel. They will get all the information they need, plus potentially access to a lot of infrastructure info they didn't have before from NASA. My guess is they'll have access to long range wifi technology which will enable them to improve their own networks and internet access, which is the heart of their economy. So essentially India is looking at this as another outsourcing project.
uvdiv 14y ago
The Atlas V which launched Curiosity weighs ~300 tons, which bounds its fuel cost at ~$300,000 (at $1/kg).
- Uchikoma 14y ago
  Curiosity: Where is the $1/kg cost from?
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    RP-1 is kerosene, so by analogy with other petroleum fuels.
    - Uchikoma 14y ago
      I couldn't find a price, W tells me: "All told, the final product is more expensive than straight-run kerosene. On paper, any petroleum can produce some RP-1 with enough processing. In practice, the fuel is sourced from a small number of oil fields with high-quality base stock. This, coupled with small demand in a niche market compared to other petroleum users, drives the price."
hsuresh 14y ago
I am surprised that it costs lesser than India's unmanned moon mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1). If ISRO can pull it off for under $100 million, that would be quite an achievement. Given the recent commercial interests in space, there might even be an opportunity to become financially independent by offering services for others.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  Why? It's only a few percent larger delta-V: http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/index.php?id=29335&L=1 http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/index.php?id=29335&L=1 It's also much smaller -- this article puts the weight of the Mars orbiter at 500 kg total, vs. 1,380 for Chandrayaan-1. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/09/india-set-for-mars-mission-in-2013 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/09/india-s...
- mayanksinghal 14y ago
  Indian organisations are notorious in having extremely low estimates that later blow up to 4-5 times. So while I have more trust in ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization), their numbers might be off by a factor.
  - biggfoot 14y ago
    The same is true for many other space missions, and quite frankly doesn't matter. For example, check the projections on the James Webb space telescope and see for yourself how the costs doubled and tripled. IMO we shouldn't look at it in terms of those costs; even if double and tripled they are not that high. Look at their effect on the larger picture.
  - spitx 14y ago
    Isn't that a rule rather than the exception in any massive project? "The project was scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006).The project was not completed, however, until December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars) as of 2006. The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
ballooney 14y ago
> Add to that the fuel for the launch vehicle; and fuel for the the cruise stage. What you've just said is the equivalent of someone witnessing a Ferrari crash into a tree and destroy itself, and saying 'Ouch, that's an expensive tank of fuel he's just wasted'. In fact the costs of fuel for these things are trivially small, basically inconsequential, compared to the cost of the things that are using the fuel - the rocket and the cruise stage. You don't get them back, they're single use, expended as part of the mission, and they're expensive.
Symmetry 14y ago
Um, why do you think they're trying to make a rover like Curiosity when the article explicitly said that they were making an orbiter? A probe that never lands can just use solar cells since it doesn't have to worry about the atmosphere, and it doesn't have to worry about the rather difficult task of landing on Mar's surface or moving around there. Putting a satellite in orbit around another planet is still a non-trivial exercise, but while $90 million is probably a low-ball figure it's not a totally unreasonable one.
uvdiv 14y ago
Who said anything about them using plutonium?
danielweber 14y ago
India won't launch any Pu-238 missions. America and former USSR countries are the countries with any, and America buys it up from anyone in those places. The planet is probably going to run out unless we start manufacturing more. And for an orbiter around Mars (like the article said), solar is probably the better choice anyway. I love nuclear power and nuclear propulsion, but it's often overkill. If we knew as much as we did now about Spirit and Opportunity we might have used solar for the MSL mission.
anuraj 14y ago
There will not probably be a rover. It is going to be an orbiter mission with a small payload which is meant to crash into the surface. PSLV - the rocket meant to get the satelite into orbit is a war horse which was used for previous moon mission too. And yes, it is pretty cheap to build and operate.

by antr 14y ago

arethuza 14y ago

Really? I'd have thought that about the cheapest thing about a launch would be the fuel. The price per kg of LOX, LH2 etc. all seem fairly low to me, a quick search gives: http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxlh2.htm http://www.astronautix.com/props/loxlh2.htm

_delirium 14y ago

That does seem ambitiously cheap, but it's at least not orders of magnitude off. NASA currently has a call where they're taking bids for a low-cost interplanetary mission, with bids capped at $425m plus launch costs: http://www.space.com/11593-nasa-planetary-missions-shortlist-2016-launch.html http://www.space.com/11593-nasa-planetary-missions-shortlist... If you take into account cheaper labor, I could imagine India coming in considerably lower than that, though I'm not sure how much lower. They could probably also save some money by using existing, already-proven technology, e.g. by purchasing some ex-Soviet designs and equipment rather than developing all custom hardware+software. That said, I would be very surprised if this launches on-budget and on-schedule.

HannibalLecter 14y ago
As someone who occasionally outsources to India, you've narrowed this article to something tangible, and you've brought this whole discussion into focus. India is obviously going to take this route and they will get their mission without the huge expense of fuel. They will get all the information they need, plus potentially access to a lot of infrastructure info they didn't have before from NASA. My guess is they'll have access to long range wifi technology which will enable them to improve their own networks and internet access, which is the heart of their economy. So essentially India is looking at this as another outsourcing project.

uvdiv 14y ago

The Atlas V which launched Curiosity weighs ~300 tons, which bounds its fuel cost at ~$300,000 (at $1/kg).

Uchikoma 14y ago
Curiosity: Where is the $1/kg cost from?
- uvdiv 14y ago
  RP-1 is kerosene, so by analogy with other petroleum fuels.
  - Uchikoma 14y ago
    I couldn't find a price, W tells me: "All told, the final product is more expensive than straight-run kerosene. On paper, any petroleum can produce some RP-1 with enough processing. In practice, the fuel is sourced from a small number of oil fields with high-quality base stock. This, coupled with small demand in a niche market compared to other petroleum users, drives the price."

hsuresh 14y ago

I am surprised that it costs lesser than India's unmanned moon mission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1). If ISRO can pull it off for under $100 million, that would be quite an achievement. Given the recent commercial interests in space, there might even be an opportunity to become financially independent by offering services for others.

uvdiv 14y ago
Why? It's only a few percent larger delta-V: http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/index.php?id=29335&L=1 http://www.lr.tudelft.nl/index.php?id=29335&L=1 It's also much smaller -- this article puts the weight of the Mars orbiter at 500 kg total, vs. 1,380 for Chandrayaan-1. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/09/india-set-for-mars-mission-in-2013 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/09/india-s...
mayanksinghal 14y ago
Indian organisations are notorious in having extremely low estimates that later blow up to 4-5 times. So while I have more trust in ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization), their numbers might be off by a factor.
- biggfoot 14y ago
  The same is true for many other space missions, and quite frankly doesn't matter. For example, check the projections on the James Webb space telescope and see for yourself how the costs doubled and tripled. IMO we shouldn't look at it in terms of those costs; even if double and tripled they are not that high. Look at their effect on the larger picture.
- spitx 14y ago
  Isn't that a rule rather than the exception in any massive project? "The project was scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006).The project was not completed, however, until December 2007, at a cost of over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars) as of 2006. The Boston Globe estimated that the project will ultimately cost $22 billion, including interest, and that it will not be paid off until 2038." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

ballooney 14y ago

> Add to that the fuel for the launch vehicle; and fuel for the the cruise stage. What you've just said is the equivalent of someone witnessing a Ferrari crash into a tree and destroy itself, and saying 'Ouch, that's an expensive tank of fuel he's just wasted'. In fact the costs of fuel for these things are trivially small, basically inconsequential, compared to the cost of the things that are using the fuel - the rocket and the cruise stage. You don't get them back, they're single use, expended as part of the mission, and they're expensive.

Symmetry 14y ago

Um, why do you think they're trying to make a rover like Curiosity when the article explicitly said that they were making an orbiter? A probe that never lands can just use solar cells since it doesn't have to worry about the atmosphere, and it doesn't have to worry about the rather difficult task of landing on Mar's surface or moving around there. Putting a satellite in orbit around another planet is still a non-trivial exercise, but while $90 million is probably a low-ball figure it's not a totally unreasonable one.

uvdiv 14y ago

Who said anything about them using plutonium?

danielweber 14y ago

India won't launch any Pu-238 missions. America and former USSR countries are the countries with any, and America buys it up from anyone in those places. The planet is probably going to run out unless we start manufacturing more. And for an orbiter around Mars (like the article said), solar is probably the better choice anyway. I love nuclear power and nuclear propulsion, but it's often overkill. If we knew as much as we did now about Spirit and Opportunity we might have used solar for the MSL mission.

anuraj 14y ago

There will not probably be a rover. It is going to be an orbiter mission with a small payload which is meant to crash into the surface. PSLV - the rocket meant to get the satelite into orbit is a war horse which was used for previous moon mission too. And yes, it is pretty cheap to build and operate.