3 ms·
NASA'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 us
by mrb 12y ago
NASA'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.