3 ms·

I think the real reason in difference in costs is that in India salaries are much lower and profits expected by 3rd party providers are much smaller. So buildi

by albeva 12y ago

I think the real reason in difference in costs is that in India salaries are much lower and profits expected by 3rd party providers are much smaller. So building and engineering is way cheaper. How about quality?

DominikR 12y ago
Money alone wont get you far in this area. It's talented engineers and the right strategy that is important. Otherwise you couldn't explain why the Soviets/Russians had such a remarkably reliable space program, even though they always had less resources than the US. From what I understand, NASA tends to overload projects with thousands of requirements and features, which introduce additional points of failure, whereas the Russians focus more on the basics. It seems like the Indians will also use the same strategy, and focus on the basics and reuse what they already have, which makes sense, considering their limited resources.
- Shivetya 12y ago
  Actually NASA tends to build to 535 requirements, give or take a few. The is similar to the problem the military faces.
  - DominikR 12y ago
    The F-35 has the same problem. It is built to perform in so many roles, that it is bad in every single one of it. (price, weight, maneuverability, payload, range)
    - autokad 12y ago
      yeah the military seems to always be obsessed with 1 aircraft that can do everything. that just means you get something that can do everything poorly.
ganwar 12y ago
Indian space program is one of the most reliable (less number of accidents) space programs in the world. Just yesterday Indian successfully launched PSLV to put 5 foreign satellites in orbit. It's 26th consecutive successful flight. It is the most reliable and cost effective rocket in the world right now. Salaries do play a part in bringing the cost down but that is not the only reason. ISRO functions like a very agile organisation with small teams focusing on specific targets with autonomy. Also, a lot of cost is saved in the testing phase as well.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I had though SpaceX was unrivaled in cost effectiveness but the PSLV is giving them some stiff competition. (cost and payload numbers from Wikipedia) Cost per kg to GTO: PSLV $10,368 Falcon9v1.1 $11,649 Cost per kg to LEO: PSLV $4,615 Falcon9v1.1 $4,296
swatkat 12y ago
We had an interesting discussion on this topic a while ago, which might interest you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7558728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7558728

by albeva 12y ago

DominikR 12y ago

Money alone wont get you far in this area. It's talented engineers and the right strategy that is important. Otherwise you couldn't explain why the Soviets/Russians had such a remarkably reliable space program, even though they always had less resources than the US. From what I understand, NASA tends to overload projects with thousands of requirements and features, which introduce additional points of failure, whereas the Russians focus more on the basics. It seems like the Indians will also use the same strategy, and focus on the basics and reuse what they already have, which makes sense, considering their limited resources.

Shivetya 12y ago
Actually NASA tends to build to 535 requirements, give or take a few. The is similar to the problem the military faces.
- DominikR 12y ago
  The F-35 has the same problem. It is built to perform in so many roles, that it is bad in every single one of it. (price, weight, maneuverability, payload, range)
  - autokad 12y ago
    yeah the military seems to always be obsessed with 1 aircraft that can do everything. that just means you get something that can do everything poorly.

ganwar 12y ago

Indian space program is one of the most reliable (less number of accidents) space programs in the world. Just yesterday Indian successfully launched PSLV to put 5 foreign satellites in orbit. It's 26th consecutive successful flight. It is the most reliable and cost effective rocket in the world right now. Salaries do play a part in bringing the cost down but that is not the only reason. ISRO functions like a very agile organisation with small teams focusing on specific targets with autonomy. Also, a lot of cost is saved in the testing phase as well.

seanflyon 12y ago
I had though SpaceX was unrivaled in cost effectiveness but the PSLV is giving them some stiff competition. (cost and payload numbers from Wikipedia) Cost per kg to GTO: PSLV $10,368 Falcon9v1.1 $11,649 Cost per kg to LEO: PSLV $4,615 Falcon9v1.1 $4,296

swatkat 12y ago

We had an interesting discussion on this topic a while ago, which might interest you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7558728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7558728