Slashdot Mirror
Robot for India's Moon Mission by IIT Kanpur
ISRO, Indian Space Research Organisation, is planning to send a robot for its mission to moon. It is probably going to be made by students and profs of IIT-Kanpur (the Indian equivalent of MIT). The two-legged robot, fitted with sophisticated sensors and high-resolution cameras, is capable of recording information and images using laser beams. It can also detect the distance of a hindrance, enter a small crater, bring surface samples and return high resolution images to the lunar vehicle. It balances cost and sophistication; basic functionality for only $50,000.
It seems fair to ask how much this off-the-shelf robotic technology owes to the "obscene" amounts of money invested by NASA and others in R&D over the last half-century.
Well, how much does it weigh? If a robot costing ten times as much weighs 10% less and does the same job, you've saved money. Getting there is the costly thing, compared to that design and construction is a trivial amount of money.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
It is a very nice project and hopefully, it will be successful. But there is no point in making comparisons until *after* the project has proven to be successful. How can one say that a project that has not succeeded yet was cheaper than another one that already passed with flying colors? This does not make sense.
That's $50,000 for a prototype robot that they wish could be used on the moon. It is not a production model, it is not slated to go to the moon, and there are no plans to send it to the moon. Ever.
According to the article, which you clearly failed to interpret: They have now have shown interest in our prototype. The organisation is seriously considering collaboration with us So, a couple folks have looked at it, and they conveyed that they found it interesting. If fact, someone at the instituion thinks the space agency is considering a (mere) collaboration. That's a far and distant cry from them delivering a space-capable robot.
Suddenly, this $50,000 student-built prototype robot seems like it could be a squandering of institutional funds, and that someone is trying to cover it up by pretending that it will go to the moon.
The Apollo missions got 47,900 kg to the moon for $2.75 billion in today's money. That's $57,411/kg. Let's say the Indians can do it vastly cheaper: $25,000/kg.
Let's say the robot weighs the same as Spirit and Opportunity (the current Mars rovers): 175kg. So the cost to get the robot to the moon would be $4,375,000, completely discounting the cost of the rocket itself, the payload container, the landing mechanism, support personnel, etc, etc.
Practical upshot: they could easily spend 10 times as much on the robot and only increase the cost of the mission 11%. And once the real costs are taken into account, the increase would probably be negligible ( 1%).
That's why NASA spends so much on the robot: a) it's incredibly expensive just to get the robot anywhere and b) if the robot screws up once it's there, the bulk of the money was completely wasted, so making the robot robust & reliable is very important.
Have you ever seen a CD for only 1 penny, but Shipping & Handling was like 20 bucks?
That little robot may only cost 50K, but Shipping & Handling to the moon is going to require upping your credit limit into the millions.
As Carl Sagan used to say, it's not as if NASA is taking hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and launching the money into space. The money is spent and circulated right here on Earth. For example a large amount of expenses is spent on salaries for scientists, engineers, technicians (and yes it is also spent on salaries for annoying beaurocrats as well). All of those people in turn then spend the money to purchase homes, cars, groceries, college educations for their kids, vacations, etc... Some of the money spent by NASA also goes to universities in the form of research and project grants. A lot of the research that comes out of these NASA projects benefits humanity in more ways than one can really count. Also, spending money is not necessarily a "sin" or bad thing. Money is meant to be spent. Spending money benefits a nation in many ways. Spending money to explore the vastness of the cosmos and universe is one of the best things we can spend money on. If we don't spend money on exploration we are doomed to become trapped on an ever increasingly crowded and depleted planet, soon to become extinct as a species one way or another. Once we do gain cheap access to space, it's hard to imagine humans waging war and battling for a tiny strip of land when the entire universe suddenly becomes open to us. (But the only way the universe will become open is if we spend money now to build the technology and experiment and explore.) And finally... if you still think the money could be "spent to help the poor", consider that our civilization has more than enough money to spend on both the poor and space exploration. And if you think that money diverted from NASA will really go to the "poor" or "education" or something great like that, then you are naive in the ways of the world and the powers that be. Money diverted from NASA will go somewhere else and it won't be to the poor I can guarantee that.
This article reminds me of the same hype we heard before the Europeans' Beagle 2 landed on Mars. What a bargin it was, how they would show NASA how it's done, etc. Except no signal was ever detected from Beagle 2, while Spirit and Opportunity are still going strong. Yea, they really showed NASA.
Mostly, the referenced article sounds like wishful thinking.
I dont believe those numbers. Are you saying IITK has a better faculty student ratio than MIT. Thats very hard to believe given that IITK is not even the top engineering college in India (that title oscillates between IIT Bombay and IIT Delhi) and definitely not the the top research instititute - that honor belongs to Indian Institute of Science Bangalore. Not many in the west hear about IISc as it does not have any undergraduate programs only postgradute research so there is no large population like the IIT B.Engg population working in US industry but if you want to do hard core research in India either you go work for the Army (DRDO), space (ISRO), Atomic establishment(DAE) or you go to IISc. There may be a few others like Indian Statistical Institute(ISI) which built the first Indian computer back in the 50s but the IITs are definitely not premier research institutes. The job of the IITs is to churn out large numbers of well trained Engineers not to carry out Fundamental research.
**Life is too short to be serious**