4 ms·

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).

by 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

by hsuresh 14y ago

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