3 ms·

I'd like to know the hardware cost and number of man-hours put into each mission. Labor is a large part of a creating and operating a spacecraft, so comparing

by smoyer 12y ago

I'd like to know the hardware cost and number of man-hours put into each mission. Labor is a large part of a creating and operating a spacecraft, so comparing man-hours eliminates the differences you might find due to the expected rate of the engineers in each country. I should also note that when I say "hardware cost", I'm also including a break-down for each sub-contractor (and sub-sub, sub-sub-sub, etc) since you can't really say you bought a large component from one vendor so that's the hardware cost of that component. This criteria makes it pretty hard to every know the actual hardware cost versus engineering/manufacturing hours.

jerf 12y ago
If India can field rocket scientists greatly more cheaply than the US, I'd submit that still says something important about the two countries. "I should also note that when I say "hardware cost", I'm also including a break-down for each sub-contractor (and sub-sub, sub-sub-sub, etc)" One nice thing about money in a mostly free economy is that you can use it as a bound on such things. If you can buy a widget at $5, the company you are purchasing it from can not have put more than $5 of resources into it (barring some exceptions, probably none of which matter for this). It doesn't matter if they sub-sub-sub-sub-contract it out, it's still bounded by the final cost. Again, if India can source a component for much more cheaply than the US, it still says something important and real about their program. The differences are fully real, and I don't think trying to "undo" them and produce the artificial numbers you are proposing will produce any useful real information.
- smoyer 12y ago
  That's besides the point ... if India is doing something different (more entrepreneurial, less bureaucracy, etc), it would be worth understanding what it was. One clue in the article was that they had a limited time to reach their launch window ... Might that constraint be responsible for cutting back to just what was necessary? I never claimed what they accomplished wasn't impressive. I tend to think their entry level rocket scientists (at $1000) generated some of the savings but what was the "mindset" that allowed the rest of the savings?

by smoyer 12y ago

jerf 12y ago

If India can field rocket scientists greatly more cheaply than the US, I'd submit that still says something important about the two countries. "I should also note that when I say "hardware cost", I'm also including a break-down for each sub-contractor (and sub-sub, sub-sub-sub, etc)" One nice thing about money in a mostly free economy is that you can use it as a bound on such things. If you can buy a widget at $5, the company you are purchasing it from can not have put more than $5 of resources into it (barring some exceptions, probably none of which matter for this). It doesn't matter if they sub-sub-sub-sub-contract it out, it's still bounded by the final cost. Again, if India can source a component for much more cheaply than the US, it still says something important and real about their program. The differences are fully real, and I don't think trying to "undo" them and produce the artificial numbers you are proposing will produce any useful real information.

smoyer 12y ago
That's besides the point ... if India is doing something different (more entrepreneurial, less bureaucracy, etc), it would be worth understanding what it was. One clue in the article was that they had a limited time to reach their launch window ... Might that constraint be responsible for cutting back to just what was necessary? I never claimed what they accomplished wasn't impressive. I tend to think their entry level rocket scientists (at $1000) generated some of the savings but what was the "mindset" that allowed the rest of the savings?