5 ms·

Isn't that dirt cheap for a trip to Mars? Like, much lower than NASA missions to the moon?

JumpCrisscross 13y ago
It's lower than market prices for building and launching a satellite to low-earth orbit.
pixelHD 13y ago
Robert frost gave a good explanation why it is so on Quora. http://www.quora.com/Robert-Frost-Quora-user/What-are-Robert-Frosts-views-on-the-significantly-low-cost-of-Indias-Mars-Orbiter-Mission http://www.quora.com/Robert-Frost-Quora-user/What-are-Robert...
- pavanky 13y ago
  That is a very simplistic and uninformed view. He does not compare the cost of electronics, gas, automobiles or even other exotic foods. Each of these cost more in India than they do in USA. One has to consider how much of the costs of the mission are actually spent on paying salaries compared to purchasing & building the equipment needed for the mission. The actual answer may have something to do with the fact that India did not spend a lot of money on R&D specifically for the Mars mission. They are leveraging existing technologies and knowledge from earlier missions (including some from NASA and ESA).
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - kamaal 13y ago
    India does/did a lot of ground work on all its own. The fact is this concept called 'frugal engineering' or commonly called in Hindi as 'Jugaad'. Its a little unfair to call is 'frugal engineering', this is more on the lines of 'Do what it takes, with whatever little you have, to go where ever you want to go'. Its really more like a cultural thing here. After centuries of invasions, foreign rule and desperation the idea is to see some success at any cost. You try to beat the odds any way you can.
    - pavanky 13y ago
      Sorry about the miscommunication. I meant to say India reused a lot of its own technology as well as what is available from other resources. You are right that the culture at ISRO is very utilitarian. But please do not try to generalize it for India in general. There are a lot of wasted resources in other organizations.
swatkat 13y ago
Apart from the economic differences (outlined in Robert Frost's Quora post), ISRO also practised "frugal engineering"[1] by making use of their existing technologies/framework while building spacecraft. For example, MOM is based on ISRO's proven I-1K spacecraft bus[2], and its onboard propulsion system is based on their apogee kick motor[3]. Payloads are completely new and developed specific to the mission. ISRO's Moon mission Chandrayaan-1[4] cost around $64 million back in 2008. It's relatively "costly" compared to Mars mission because ISRO had to do some groundwork to support such deep space missions. For example, Indian Deep Space Network[5] was built at that time to track Chandrayaan-1; and now it's being used to track MOM as well. [1]http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-31/news/43561612_1_moon-mission-chandrayaan-i-isro http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-31/news... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-1K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-1K [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apogee_kick_motor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apogee_kick_motor [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 [5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Deep_Space_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Deep_Space_Network
- DougWebb 13y ago
  I hope the frugal engineering works out for them. In 1990 I spent a semester working at GE AstroSpace as an intern, and one of my tasks was a small role on the Mars Observer(1) probe. It was also a frugal, based on an Earth-orbiting satellite design that was repurposed for a deep-space mission to Mars orbit. It apparently blew up when it got there, likely due to a failure in the fuel system. That's where I come in. In early 1990, there was a weight problem with the spacecraft, and the engineers were looking for ways to eliminate mass. I was working with the propulsion team, and my task was to go through all of the blueprints, count components, and document their mass. The team was going to use that to determine which components were redundant (for safety) and how much mass could be eliminated by removing them. I did my task, and went on to something else so I don't know how the system was modified. But from what I've read about the loss of the spacecraft, a leading theory is that one of the valves in the propulsion system failed and that led to the explosion. The valves were designed to be opened very soon after launch, once the satellite reached Earth orbit; they weren't designed for the deep-freeze of a two-year trip to Mars before being opened. I beleive that not only did the valve malfunction, but its redundant backup had also been removed based, in part, on the task I performed. If there hadn't been a weight problem (which may also have been to frugal engineering to reduce fuel requirements), the explosion might not have happened. I've never felt any responsibilty; my task was to provide information, not decisions. But it would have been nice if I was involved with a more successful mission. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer

It's lower than market prices for building and launching a satellite to low-earth orbit.

Robert frost gave a good explanation why it is so on Quora. http://www.quora.com/Robert-Frost-Quora-user/What-are-Robert-Frosts-views-on-the-significantly-low-cost-of-Indias-Mars-Orbiter-Mission http://www.quora.com/Robert-Frost-Quora-user/What-are-Robert...

pavanky 13y ago
That is a very simplistic and uninformed view. He does not compare the cost of electronics, gas, automobiles or even other exotic foods. Each of these cost more in India than they do in USA. One has to consider how much of the costs of the mission are actually spent on paying salaries compared to purchasing & building the equipment needed for the mission. The actual answer may have something to do with the fact that India did not spend a lot of money on R&D specifically for the Mars mission. They are leveraging existing technologies and knowledge from earlier missions (including some from NASA and ESA).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- kamaal 13y ago
  India does/did a lot of ground work on all its own. The fact is this concept called 'frugal engineering' or commonly called in Hindi as 'Jugaad'. Its a little unfair to call is 'frugal engineering', this is more on the lines of 'Do what it takes, with whatever little you have, to go where ever you want to go'. Its really more like a cultural thing here. After centuries of invasions, foreign rule and desperation the idea is to see some success at any cost. You try to beat the odds any way you can.
  - pavanky 13y ago
    Sorry about the miscommunication. I meant to say India reused a lot of its own technology as well as what is available from other resources. You are right that the culture at ISRO is very utilitarian. But please do not try to generalize it for India in general. There are a lot of wasted resources in other organizations.

swatkat 13y ago

Apart from the economic differences (outlined in Robert Frost's Quora post), ISRO also practised "frugal engineering"[1] by making use of their existing technologies/framework while building spacecraft. For example, MOM is based on ISRO's proven I-1K spacecraft bus[2], and its onboard propulsion system is based on their apogee kick motor[3]. Payloads are completely new and developed specific to the mission. ISRO's Moon mission Chandrayaan-1[4] cost around $64 million back in 2008. It's relatively "costly" compared to Mars mission because ISRO had to do some groundwork to support such deep space missions. For example, Indian Deep Space Network[5] was built at that time to track Chandrayaan-1; and now it's being used to track MOM as well. [1]http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-31/news/43561612_1_moon-mission-chandrayaan-i-isro http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-10-31/news... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-1K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-1K [3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apogee_kick_motor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apogee_kick_motor [4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1 [5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Deep_Space_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Deep_Space_Network

DougWebb 13y ago
I hope the frugal engineering works out for them. In 1990 I spent a semester working at GE AstroSpace as an intern, and one of my tasks was a small role on the Mars Observer(1) probe. It was also a frugal, based on an Earth-orbiting satellite design that was repurposed for a deep-space mission to Mars orbit. It apparently blew up when it got there, likely due to a failure in the fuel system. That's where I come in. In early 1990, there was a weight problem with the spacecraft, and the engineers were looking for ways to eliminate mass. I was working with the propulsion team, and my task was to go through all of the blueprints, count components, and document their mass. The team was going to use that to determine which components were redundant (for safety) and how much mass could be eliminated by removing them. I did my task, and went on to something else so I don't know how the system was modified. But from what I've read about the loss of the spacecraft, a leading theory is that one of the valves in the propulsion system failed and that led to the explosion. The valves were designed to be opened very soon after launch, once the satellite reached Earth orbit; they weren't designed for the deep-freeze of a two-year trip to Mars before being opened. I beleive that not only did the valve malfunction, but its redundant backup had also been removed based, in part, on the task I performed. If there hadn't been a weight problem (which may also have been to frugal engineering to reduce fuel requirements), the explosion might not have happened. I've never felt any responsibilty; my task was to provide information, not decisions. But it would have been nice if I was involved with a more successful mission. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Observer