3 ms·
"They've kept it small. The payload weighs only about 15kg. " Whoa... So basically that whole mission was for 30ish pounds of actual 'useful equipment' in orbi
by jgmmo 12y ago
"They've kept it small. The payload weighs only about 15kg. "
Whoa... So basically that whole mission was for 30ish pounds of actual 'useful equipment' in orbit?
- sliverstorm 12y agoYes. Remember that cost per kg for a launch- just in fuel costs- is still something like five figures USD. Weight is a tremendous source of cost savings. Compare to the Mars Science Laboratory, at 3,893 kg. They might have spent $150k in fuel costs, while we might have spent $38M.
- seanflyon 12y ago> just in fuel costs I think you mean 'just in rocket costs' as the fuel cost is negligible and the cost of the launch is 5 figures (dollars/kg). For example the falcon 9 costs $12,618/kg to GTO and $4,653/kg to LEO. I don't recall the exact figure but fuel cost is a low single digit percentage of that cost.
- sliverstorm 12y agoSorry, my mistake. I appreciate you pointing it out.
- mrb 12y agoNASA's MAVEN payload was just 4.3 times heavier (65kg vs. 15kg) but cost 9.1 times more ($671M vs. 74M). So NASA is still 2.1 times more expensive per kg of useful payload. And costs scale less than linearly with the payload mass, so a bigger Indian mission would have likely been even more than 2.1 times more efficient than NASA...
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- wodenokoto 12y agoWhat makes you think there's a linear relation between payload weight and cost?
- unclebucknasty 12y ago>What makes you think there's a linear relation between payload weight and cost? ...or that payload weight is correlated with scientific value.
- chulk90 12y agoFuel cost increases at a square of the delta of force required. So the NASA project was actually more efficient.
- cgjaro 12y agoNo. Most of the costs are people costs as the article rightly explains, not fuel. Fuel is an extremely tiny fraction of the overall mission costs.
- mturmon 12y agoThese are two very different missions. The ISRO mission is primarily a tech demo, and as such can tolerate greater risk. The NASA mission is focused on a specific science question, and carries several very complex instruments sufficient to answer the question.