6 ms·

What is even more commendable is that it was done pretty cheaply [1]. Granted the capabilities of some of the other craft are different - but not THAT different

What is even more commendable is that it was done pretty cheaply [1]. Granted the capabilities of some of the other craft are different - but not THAT different. Add to this the fact that this was a success in the first shot - getting a craft from the Earth to to Mars Orbit correctly in one shot on a meager budget is indeed a stunning success for ISRO. [1] https://twitter.com/WSJIndia/status/514591179363864578/photo/1 https://twitter.com/WSJIndia/status/514591179363864578/photo...

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fragsworth 12y ago
It cost them $74 million. I'm going to predict it now - in about 10-20 years, wealthy hobbyists will be sending probes to other planets, eventually creating a worldwide community of amateur planet probers.
- dtparr 12y ago
  Unless it somehow advances to the point of being foolproof, that seems a little worrying from a Kessler syndrome standpoint.
  - adrianN 12y ago
    With my limited understanding of orbital mechanics, it seems pretty hard to get something into a stable orbit around earth, especially if you're aiming for Mars. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
    - wcoenen 12y ago
      I think interplanetary missions usually start by reaching low earth orbit, and only then burning at the right time to start the interplanetary transfer. So getting stuck in LEO is not that unlikely. For example, the Russian Fobos-Grunt[1] mars mission got stranded in LEO. Though indeed not in a stable orbit; it did re-enter and burn up two months later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    It's not big satellites in controlled orbits that are a major problem from a space junk standpoint. Mostly it's the smaller fragments that are the problem, which outnumber satellites by a huge margin. Besides which, the easier it would be to launch satellites into orbit the easier, and cheaper, it would be to launch programs for cleaning up debris and abandoned satellites.
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    It's not big satellites in controlled orbits that are a major problem from a space junk standpoint. Mostly it's the smaller fragments that are the problem, which outnumber satellites by a huge margin. Besides which, the easier it would be to launch satellites into orbit the easier, and cheaper, it would be to launch programs for cleaning up debris and abandoned satellites. In fact, if launch were significantly cheaper then Earth orbiting satellites could be equipped with special sub-systems designed to deorbit them if the main satellite became inoperable.
    - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
      I read an article forever ago that a de-orbiting system could be as simple as a bunch of wires being shot from the satellite to the earth; gravity would tug on the wires and slowly pull the satellite out of orbit.
      - BrandonMarc 12y ago
        Atmospheric drag, too, I suspect. Especially if the wire has some sort of weight on the end of it. Actually, that's rather like an anchor.
  - madaxe_again 12y ago
    Hey, don't knock Kessler syndrome - it may be the one thing that can save the planet. Sure, it's a Scylla and Charybdis type choice between boosting albedo or having viable space travel, but it may come to that. Either way, there are practical applications for Kessler syndrome, although in the context discussed here, of course you're right - last thing anyone wants is junk all over the shop while trying to carry out space travel.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- reitzensteinm 12y ago
  Along similar lines, here's my prediction: the first successful crowdfunded visit to another planet will happen by 2030.
  - Ankaios 12y ago
    Long before that, probably. People are currently working on a couple of attempts now.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Record it here http://predictionbook.com/ http://predictionbook.com/, so that you can check by 2030 whether you were right :).
enupten 12y ago
What's even more fascinating is that ISRO survived at all, through the cold war. The fact that India has a fledgling space program, despite its problems, strikes me as rather inspiring. The fact that it was done cheaply stems partly from the fact that there is a factor of ~5-10 between the purchasing-power and corresponding USD value (which is why engineers in India seem to be paid lower in dollar terms).
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - th3iedkid 12y ago
    one more surprise : despite the amount of rampant corruption at top-levels in places like ISRO , its still working out excellent!
    - gnurag 12y ago
      Citation needed, or I call BS on this.
      - th3iedkid 12y ago
        this one on spectrum allocation to help generate revenue: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Another-spectrum-scam-hits-govt-this-time-from-ISRO/articleshow/7445139.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Another-spectrum-sc...
        gnurag 12y ago
        tell me, did you google for "isro scam" or do you actually understand spectrum pricing and antitrust laws?
    - nkoren 12y ago
      I've done a lot of work with the Indian government, and yes it can be very corrupted. But from what my friends at ISRO have told me -- and I believe them -- it is a meritocracy of the highest order. Its consistently excellent performance over the years is further testimony to this. ISRO should be an inspiration to the rest of India.
mendort 12y ago
It does have less than 1/4 of the payload (by mass) of NASA's MAVEN. So it's not like NASA's much higher budget didn't buy them anything. Still, it is a wonderful thing to show that you don't need NASA sized budgets to do interesting things in space.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
It reminds me a bit of Rutherford's famous quip about experiment design, "We don't have any money... we shall have to be clever!" Indian's ability to come together, organize and execute this mission is a huge credit to them. I hope other space agencies will take a careful look at what they've done and how they've done it, so they can learn from them. As a Canadian, this makes me realize that Canada could just as well have done this. $75 million is less than our government spends on subsidizing our local film industry: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ems-sgd/me-bpd/20142015/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc2-124 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ems-sgd/me-bpd/20142015/me-bpd02-en...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fragsworth 12y ago

It cost them $74 million. I'm going to predict it now - in about 10-20 years, wealthy hobbyists will be sending probes to other planets, eventually creating a worldwide community of amateur planet probers.

dtparr 12y ago
Unless it somehow advances to the point of being foolproof, that seems a little worrying from a Kessler syndrome standpoint.
- adrianN 12y ago
  With my limited understanding of orbital mechanics, it seems pretty hard to get something into a stable orbit around earth, especially if you're aiming for Mars. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
  - wcoenen 12y ago
    I think interplanetary missions usually start by reaching low earth orbit, and only then burning at the right time to start the interplanetary transfer. So getting stuck in LEO is not that unlikely. For example, the Russian Fobos-Grunt[1] mars mission got stranded in LEO. Though indeed not in a stable orbit; it did re-enter and burn up two months later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fobos-Grunt
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  It's not big satellites in controlled orbits that are a major problem from a space junk standpoint. Mostly it's the smaller fragments that are the problem, which outnumber satellites by a huge margin. Besides which, the easier it would be to launch satellites into orbit the easier, and cheaper, it would be to launch programs for cleaning up debris and abandoned satellites.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  It's not big satellites in controlled orbits that are a major problem from a space junk standpoint. Mostly it's the smaller fragments that are the problem, which outnumber satellites by a huge margin. Besides which, the easier it would be to launch satellites into orbit the easier, and cheaper, it would be to launch programs for cleaning up debris and abandoned satellites. In fact, if launch were significantly cheaper then Earth orbiting satellites could be equipped with special sub-systems designed to deorbit them if the main satellite became inoperable.
  - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    I read an article forever ago that a de-orbiting system could be as simple as a bunch of wires being shot from the satellite to the earth; gravity would tug on the wires and slowly pull the satellite out of orbit.
    - BrandonMarc 12y ago
      Atmospheric drag, too, I suspect. Especially if the wire has some sort of weight on the end of it. Actually, that's rather like an anchor.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  Hey, don't knock Kessler syndrome - it may be the one thing that can save the planet. Sure, it's a Scylla and Charybdis type choice between boosting albedo or having viable space travel, but it may come to that. Either way, there are practical applications for Kessler syndrome, although in the context discussed here, of course you're right - last thing anyone wants is junk all over the shop while trying to carry out space travel.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
reitzensteinm 12y ago
Along similar lines, here's my prediction: the first successful crowdfunded visit to another planet will happen by 2030.
- Ankaios 12y ago
  Long before that, probably. People are currently working on a couple of attempts now.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  Record it here http://predictionbook.com/ http://predictionbook.com/, so that you can check by 2030 whether you were right :).

enupten 12y ago

What's even more fascinating is that ISRO survived at all, through the cold war. The fact that India has a fledgling space program, despite its problems, strikes me as rather inspiring. The fact that it was done cheaply stems partly from the fact that there is a factor of ~5-10 between the purchasing-power and corresponding USD value (which is why engineers in India seem to be paid lower in dollar terms).

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- th3iedkid 12y ago
  one more surprise : despite the amount of rampant corruption at top-levels in places like ISRO , its still working out excellent!
  - gnurag 12y ago
    Citation needed, or I call BS on this.
    - th3iedkid 12y ago
      this one on spectrum allocation to help generate revenue: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Another-spectrum-scam-hits-govt-this-time-from-ISRO/articleshow/7445139.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Another-spectrum-sc...
      - gnurag 12y ago
        tell me, did you google for "isro scam" or do you actually understand spectrum pricing and antitrust laws?
  - nkoren 12y ago
    I've done a lot of work with the Indian government, and yes it can be very corrupted. But from what my friends at ISRO have told me -- and I believe them -- it is a meritocracy of the highest order. Its consistently excellent performance over the years is further testimony to this. ISRO should be an inspiration to the rest of India.

mendort 12y ago

It does have less than 1/4 of the payload (by mass) of NASA's MAVEN. So it's not like NASA's much higher budget didn't buy them anything. Still, it is a wonderful thing to show that you don't need NASA sized budgets to do interesting things in space.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

It reminds me a bit of Rutherford's famous quip about experiment design, "We don't have any money... we shall have to be clever!" Indian's ability to come together, organize and execute this mission is a huge credit to them. I hope other space agencies will take a careful look at what they've done and how they've done it, so they can learn from them. As a Canadian, this makes me realize that Canada could just as well have done this. $75 million is less than our government spends on subsidizing our local film industry: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ems-sgd/me-bpd/20142015/me-bpd02-eng.asp#toc2-124 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ems-sgd/me-bpd/20142015/me-bpd02-en...