Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

India Plans Mars Mission in 2013

Posted by Unknown on from the offplaneting-development-proved-disastrous dept.

New submitter susmit writes with news of India's new goal for launching a satellite to Mars in 2013. From the article: "India plans to launch a mission to Mars next year, putting an orbital probe around the red planet to study its climate and geology, top space department officials said on Thursday. ... A 320-tonne Indian Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle rocket will be used to carry the orbiter spaceship, blasting off from the ISRO launch site at Sriharikota in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. Another senior official at ISRO, requesting anonymity, estimated the cost of the mission at 4.0-5.0 billion rupees ($70-90 million dollars)."

91 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. No electricity needed. by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sending a probe to Mars without any electricity, damn..... We're really lagging behind in terms of innovation :)

    --
    Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    1. Re:No electricity needed. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Or you could think of it as "First Squishee In Space"!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budget. Now I want to know why it costs 20-50 times more in our developed western nations.

  3. Oh Great by thewils · · Score: 1, Funny

    There'll most likely be a corner shop there for the next mission.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:Oh Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Better that than a Wal-Mart.

    2. Re:Oh Great by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      A call center. Holding 8 minutes every sentence is going to be a pain...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  4. I say good luck to them! by FauxReal · · Score: 1

    Hopefully that'll spur some congressional envy and NASA will get a bigger budget in 2014.

    --
    Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
    1. Re:I say good luck to them! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      An extra 80 million dollars?

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:I say good luck to them! by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      An extra 80 million dollars?

      Not after the pork gets handed out.

  5. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    I refuse to believe they can deliver a mars orbiter for 80 million USD.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  6. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I refuse to believe they can deliver a mars orbiter for 80 million USD.

    I'm skeptical as well. I'd love to see them succeed, but I think it's more likely this will turn out like the $45 Aakash tablet computer did. Often when the price tag on something seems to good to be true, it is.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  7. Re:not gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    India had the world's largest economy before the white racist bastards from the so-called-civilized world plundered and looted India.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_India

  8. Best of luck to them. by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

    I didn't know that one could even think about thinking of doing something in aerospace when you're only given 1-2 years.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  9. Why so cheap by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    why it costs 20-50 times more ...

    Space missions (and pretty much everything that a government spends money on) cost as much as you've got. If you have a $1Bn budget, they'll cost $1Bn. Whether you get $1Bn of value from spending that (or whether your $70M Mars shot will do what it's supposed to) is an altogether different question.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Why so cheap by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      can they get a meaningful amount of weight out of orbit and en route to mars for that money even?

      this does sound awful lot like "hey there's a mars rover now getting a biiig biiig amount of press coverage, even more than our cricket team!. I know, let's announce one and watch money and publicity flow in!"

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Why so cheap by amorsen · · Score: 2

      can they get a meaningful amount of weight out of orbit and en route to mars for that money even?

      Not right now, but it is not completely impossible. Right now raw material and fuel cost is below 1% of mission cost (often much much less), so we are nowhere near the physical limits on launch costs.

      In fact, fuel is so cheap that if all a space elevator saves is fuel, it isn't worth building.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:Why so cheap by Kergan · · Score: 5, Informative

      It always rubs me the wrong way when government spending gets systematically and broadly dissed as inefficient.

      I've lived in a number of countries and, frankly, public entities seldom stroke me as materially more inefficient than large corporations. The difference is meaningful, inasfar as I've been experiencing it anyway, in only a few cases:

      The first and most important is when corruption is rampant. Eg. good luck finding a lost luggage in a sub-Sahara airport if you don't tip the employee; or spending less than a whole afternoon paying for a parking ticket in Mexico if you didn't get the memo that you should tip the cop who hands you the ticket in the first place. This is virtually non-existent in western countries.

      The second most important is the heightened awareness of and concern for the welfare of local communities and the environment, either because they like to get the job well done, as opposed to well enough, or due to public opposition. Eg. noone in his right mind would argue that bullet proof vests are wasteful spending for soldiers, irrespective of the subsequent PST costs; and a public entity would need to surmount a mountain of opposition before building a highway or setting train tracks in a wild life reserve. This is virtually non-existent outside of western countries.

      Another is silly procedures, but it's arguably not the public servants' fault, and large corporations are notoriously full of them too.

      Staff that doesn't give a shit about anything is yet another, but I found this to be mostly cultural: when mostly true, it also holds mostly true at the population level. This is particularly pronounced in developing countries.

      The next, last and arguably least important is when powerful public unions successfully bargained for lavish benefits. Eg. a public servant cannot get sacked in France even if he spends most of his day pretending to work. Frankly though, most public servants I've met or interacted with over the years were just as professional as the next guy working for a large corporation -- which is to say, not very, but being a public servant has little to do with it. The real difference is that you're forced to interact with public servants, and you typically do so in times of hardship. (If you ever had to deal with an unscrupulous insurance company, you probably know what I mean.)

      Your mileage varies per country, obviously. French public servants, for instance, are very self-entitled and often mocked by the French as the epitome of inefficiency; a quick tour in a Mexican administration, however, will make any French person (correctly) praise his home country's adminstration as one of the most efficient in the world. Much the same could be said of the UK and German ones, minus the public servants' attitude. The US one is competent by my standards, as is the Canadian one. Neither are very friendly nor helpful, but they get things done efficiently. The Mexican one, an absolute mess by any standard, actually shines when compared to the (understaffed) Indian one. And don't even get me started on African countries.

      Anyway, my point is this: mock your administration all you want; complain about its costliness; pinpoint its uselesness; but keep in mind that people in most other countries would envy it as a model of efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

      There... I fed the troll.

    4. Re:Why so cheap by Kergan · · Score: 2

      I'd argue they aren't that bad in developed countries.

      In other words, public entities usually aren't much more inefficient than the fattest, slowest, most entrenched corporations out there. That sets the bar pretty high.

      Not saying that the bar is high. I find it awkwardly low too. Just saying that apples should be compared with apples -- or arguably with Apple, which reportedly managed to keep a start-up culture.

      So we should be happy because it could be a lot worse? Again, you are setting very high expectations for government entities. I hope they can achieve them.

      I suspect you don't even have the beginning of a clue of what interacting with a corrupt administration can be like. As a yard stick, consider that the UN and not-for-profits are happy when 25% of any foreign aid sent to some countries actually ends up where it should. You read that right: a 75% loss due to bribery and protection rackets is considered efficient use of funds.

      Closer to you and your everyday life, imagine interacting with a rabid IRS inspector that will only stop harassing you if you accept to pay a small fine due to "misapproprietely" reported revenue -- for him to justify the time he spent on you -- and a yearly protection racket so he won't waste your time the follow-up years. Further, imagine complaining to his boss or the judge, getting dismissed, and finding out later on that both get their cut of the corrupt agent's protection racket, and that their own bosses are mafiosi. Far fetched? Nope: at your door step. Bars, restaurants and hotels in touristy areas of the Riviera Maya nearly all either belong to the mafia, or pay lavish protection rackets to one or more of criminals, health inspectors and tax inspectors; and the governor of Yucatan got arrested a few years back for being a mafioso himself.

      I presume you don't have to endure this kind of crap. Consider it a huge achievement, because some do, and eventually consider it a cost of doing business.

      Once you've seen it, you'll readily accommodate yourself with a good enough/not too corrupt administration on a "could be hellishly worse" basis.

    5. Re:Why so cheap by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Per the example I gave to khallow, include the bribes.

    6. Re:Why so cheap by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 1

      I'd be interested to see a breakdown for where all the rest goes. Do you have a link to a source?

    7. Re:Why so cheap by khallow · · Score: 1

      Once you've seen it, you'll readily accommodate yourself with a good enough/not too corrupt administration on a "could be hellishly worse" basis.

      No, that willingness to settle for something that isn't "hellishly worse" is part of what creates those bad governments.

    8. Re:Why so cheap by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I actually agree. ANY large entity is inefficient be it private or public.

      For instance, in IT we often see large corporate branch offices. They'll have a cisco router and switch $5k and a T1 $600/mo with $1k installation in a branch office with three staff members. They'll have exacting standards for how they want this gear configured, port numbering, vlans, etc and they'll have higher level central IT staff configure the gear ($120) and then have some local contractor deploy it ($65). That is about $7k to get started and at least $600/mo after that.

      In a small company that same office won't have an expensive cisco or juniper logo anywhere in sight. Their router and switch is one consumer level box that is more than adequate for an office that size ($100) and they will call that same local contractor to both set it up and install ($65) which will still take only one hour because of the simple configuration. It will use local broadband, they probably won't pay extra to have it called "business class" because they don't need the static addresses so $45/mo with no installation. So about $200 to get going and under $50/mo after that and MUCH faster internet.

      Despite industry myths, both will have solid up time and downtime is pretty much never as expensive as its hyped to be anyway. When a branch office goes down almost everything can simply be caught up later.

    9. Re:Why so cheap by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "In other words, public entities usually aren't much more inefficient than the fattest, slowest, most entrenched corporations out there. That sets the bar pretty high."

      If someone wants to privatize it is those fat entrenched slow corporations that they generally would be privatizing to. They are at least as inefficient as government.

    10. Re:Why so cheap by khallow · · Score: 1

      If someone wants to privatize it is those fat entrenched slow corporations that they generally would be privatizing to. They are at least as inefficient as government.

      Well, keep in mind that a lot of government can just be ended without privatization. It wouldn't give advantage to political merchants, for example, if the government activity just ended rather than the funds be redirected to them.

    11. Re:Why so cheap by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If the service is still going to be needed after the government stops providing it then it amounts to the same thing. Generally things being provided by government require large capital outlay meaning a large corp running them and if they don't, the nature of capitalism guarantees that it is just a matter of time before one or a small number of large megacorps dominate the area.

      Mostly it is all just a bunch of excuses around the conversation. Most people making this argument really just want to be able to profit to the tune of the output of multiple people while only paying a tax share equal to one of those people. Unfortunately that profit had to be produced somewhere and the people who produced it are out the difference but need the same level of services.

    12. Re:Why so cheap by amorsen · · Score: 1

      No, I don't have a good source. There is a page, Why Are Launch Costs So High" which looks at the problem.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  10. Re:Lots of dead indians floating in space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *achievement unlocked: the first to say curry in a thread about india*

    other targets include saying

    -rootkit in a sony thread
    -you're holding it wrong in an apple thread
    -flying chairs in a microsoft thread

  11. India as an advanced country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    And in the meantime, they can't keep the electricity flowing across their country, and have no decent sewage system for 80% of their citizens.

    Something makes me think they should be paying a bit more attention to these issues....

    1. Re:India as an advanced country? by bittersdotter · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the argument is presumably that a mission to Mars is probably more of an inspirational drive for upcoming scientists and engineers than building a boring old sewage system. If the figure quoted is truly correct, it's probably worth risking what is in the order of ~0.01% of GDP on something likely to spur a new generation of scientists and engineers and hence economic growth in the long term.

    2. Re:India as an advanced country? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 2

      While you are correct you must also realize that rockets and outer space are big business and the scientific knowledge and engineering developments that come out of engineering and re-engineering the technology are very very valuable things. If they can get a mars probe up successfully at that price point they'll be securing a place for themselves in space business and technology for the next 20 years.

      And from another angle you must realize rural India isn't going to get modernized without massive financial stiumuls - and yet the only things that India currently makes money off of don't have great future prospects. Hopefully this will be a good economic stimulus and technological boon for them.

    3. Re:India as an advanced country? by bazorg · · Score: 1

      I kind of suspect that the 2013 Mars missions was something they have been planning for a while, not as a week-long project that was about to be presented to the press when there was a major power failure. There's a lot of people in India, I'm sure they are not all involved in doing the same thing as a 1 000 000 000 people team...

    4. Re:India as an advanced country? by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      yeah, and a paltry $80 million is going to fix all those problems, right?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    5. Re:India as an advanced country? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      But they do get massive financial stimulus - from other countries in aid. Of course, most of that goes in someone's pocket and not to the rural poor who need it. This is the great scandal of India, corruption is so rife its untrue.

      $80m is peanuts to them, when a leading industrialist is currently building a 27-story house for himself, his wife and 3 kids, so I guess 2 stories for the servants, and 5 each. How will they cope?!

    6. Re:India as an advanced country? by vinlud · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you are from, but I remember my servers being inaccessible for days by a major state wide power problem in the 3rd world area named California only a few years ago

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
  12. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Grayhand · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budget. Now I want to know why it costs 20-50 times more in our developed western nations.

    Ah, because ours tend to actually make it to Mars. I can launch a Mars mission for a $1.98 it doesn't mean it'll actually reach Mars. The US spend billions reaching the Moon but other than one accident on the launch pad and one time we failed to land we made it there. It's one thing to say you are going to Mars but failing to achieve a lesser goal I have my doubts.

  13. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by LifeIs0x2A · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because it's probably gonna be more than that and then I'm quite sure something is gonna fail somwhere along the way. Just a few days ago one third of the population of India has been without electricty for a few hours. How about the government invest their money into a stable power grid first.

  14. India plans moon mission by kawabago · · Score: 2, Funny

    So am I.

    1. Re:India plans moon mission by HyperQuantum · · Score: 2

      Maybe you guys can establish a formal collaboration.

      --
      I am not really here right now.
  15. Wrong project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not the one to usually complain about expensive science endeavors while other societal problems go unresolved. But I have visited India and seen the misery -- it's nauseating. What's more nauseating is how the local middle-class doesn't find it nauseating. They are seemingly completely untouched by the plight of the children they see every day on their commute.

    What a soulless nation. What is needed is a national program to eradicate poverty.

    1. Re:Wrong project by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Oh yes and that can be easily done with all those funds coming from Indias income from exports of incandescent and flourescent light bulbs. Oh, what? LED you say? ... hmm, looks like India needs something else. What do all the successfull countries make their money off of? Oh yes, technology! What's a good program to develop a lot of technology and get a lot of international attention? Space!

      India does need a national program to end poverty, but they also need a national program that will secure the funds to do so. I sincerely hope that this will be one of those programs, and anxiously await the residual technologies that could improve space travel and human life across the world.

    2. Re:Wrong project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes but india does not even provide massive swaths of people a basic education. part of the reason china has advanced so fast is because even peasants in a remote backwater learn reading and math and the best ones can get to the universities. in india millions of people can't even read! i've seen them in america too. people who's wives can't even add and subtract, that would be embarrassing to like 90% of the world, even muslims would cringe at that, but for indian culture it's no problem. sure, the people promoting h1bs like you to think everybody in india has a phd in computer science but the reality is millions of people in india can't even read.

    3. Re:Wrong project by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      It is easy to eradicate poverty. They just need to stop breeding like rabbits and the problem will go away within 30 years.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    4. Re:Wrong project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Poverty didn't disappear with that "program" anywhere. It's the reverse that happened: as poverty receded, birth rates started to come down.

      The space program once united Americans behind a common banner. The Americans were shamed by the successes of the Soviet Union. The vehicle that rallied the Americans and pulled the challenging program through was the Federal Government. Only a functional government can work life-changing miracles like that.

      What India needs is a similar shame felt by the middle-class for the poverty of their nation. So far the Indians have congratulated themselves for being less badly off than the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis. But time has come to shine the light to the Indians and make them compare themselves with the Europeans or the Chinese. While Beijing has been elevating hundreds of millions of people from destitution, what is New Delhi doing apart from lining their pockets?

      Taj Mahal, the atom bomb, the Mars mission my ass. What about the poor, India?

  16. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A large part of the cost may be due to accounting.

    They use an existing rocket; zero development cost there. While Nasa would probably either develop a new rocket just for that mission, and put all the cost of development on the Mars mission, so they could re-use the rocket later at much lower cost for projects they don't have budget for.

    And there are probably many more places were just accounting cost to one project or the other (little is developed exclusively for one project) can make or break a budget.

  17. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    They're not going to put a lander down. Saves heaps of cost.

  18. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 2

    I wonder how much the salaries are for highly trained scientists in India is compared to the US? I assume relatively a lot for India, but I also suspect they have a lot of highly trained people that work for peanuts compared to USD (a la outsourcing). How much does the actual hardware really cost?

    --
    This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  19. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It doesn't cost 20-50 times as much, Mars Odyssey cost 3.6 times as much and after 11 years its still working fine. Don't turn Slashdot into a house of lie's young lady!

  20. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

    India is actually one place tablet computers have persisted to be popular (and way before the iPad too), this one just got attention because of what it was and what its mission was at the time. And it is a dissapointment that it failed, but getting tablets at sub $50 price points in India is easy. If you want some yourself you can find them on alibaba.com, but don't count on finding many that are actually -made- in India.

    Samples so nobody bitches:
    http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/425363981/2012_PC_Tablet_7_inch_Android.html
    http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/586506340/7_inch_android_4_0_Rockchip.html

  21. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by jep305 · · Score: 1

    "Often when the price tag on something seems to good to be true, it is."

    Yeah, like offshored software development.

    --
    In Reason We Trust
  22. Let my speculate, it won't happen. by tsahi · · Score: 1

    This budget is hardly enough to launch a small research satellite around Earth. To launch a vehicle to Mars which will actually be useful, they need at least something in the order of $200M. That's the experience of other nations who have launched to Mars. In addition, It takes at least about five years to design and construct such a vehicle. To do it in less than two years is a sure recipe to failure.

    1. Re:Let my speculate, it won't happen. by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      This budget is hardly enough to launch a small research satellite around Earth.

      this is wrong. isro launched a moon satellite in 90 million usd. but i do agree that they will spend at leats 200mil for a mars mission. as with all government agency plans, the price goes up quite rapidly after the project is approved.
      also, nasa's incompetency does not indicate that it will take every other country 5 years to design and fabricate a mars orbiter.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  23. India - the land of big talk by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but I think it's more likely this will turn out like the $45 Aakash tablet computer did. Often when the price tag on something seems to good to be true, it is.

     
    I've been watching India closely for the past 2 decades and the one conclusion that I got is that India likes to talk big, and after that, nothing
     
    Of the numerous projects that they've announced, India achieved only one - the Chandrayaan moon satellite project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrayaan-1
     
    As for the others, I'm not that confident that they can deliver, on time, and/or on budget
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:India - the land of big talk by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I am not from Pakistan, and I have no reason to hate India

      I'm merely an observer - and I've been watching India, China, Korea, Brazil closely - for investment opportunities

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  24. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

    Just making it there is not necessarily useful though: http://articles.cnn.com/1999-09-30/tech/9909_30_mars.metric_1_mars-orbiter-climate-orbiter-spacecraft-team?_s=PM:TECH

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  25. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Findeton · · Score: 1

    It will actually cost $500 million or more and will be launched one or two years after the deadline. Just sit back and watch it happen.

  26. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Megane · · Score: 2

    Maybe they've budgeted all the savings into tech support.

    "I am very sorry sir, but I cannot continue helping you until you have first rebooted your orbiter."

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  27. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by murdocj · · Score: 1

    "Often when the price tag on something seems to good to be true, it is."

    Yeah, like offshored software development.

    So true... you can hire people for 1/3rd of what you'd pay locally, and you end up getting what you pay for.

  28. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by murdocj · · Score: 1

    Lets not forget the success of the Lunar Probe (Chandrayaan-1) which cost about $90 million and was completed in 3 years time frame.

    Yes, but it's a few years later and they are talking about delivering a Mars probe for less money. Is that believable?

  29. I've got high hopes for them... by ilsaloving · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unlike some other counties, they know how to use the metric system. ;)

    (j/k)

  30. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Hadlock · · Score: 2

    Because we keep using our legacy contractors. You'll note that after Lockheed Martin's failed (miserably failed, I might add) x33, they weren't included, or even considered, for a Human rated space capsule this time around. While Boeing got a significant amount of funding for their CST-100 capsule, SpaceX got nearly the same funding as Boeing ($400+ million), which is a step in the right direction. The fact that SpaceX already has an unmanned rated capsule flying in space goes a long ways towards seeing their (much cheaper) hardware flying humans through the atmosphere and in to space... and back).

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  31. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Perhaps because NASA employees refuse to work for $2 a day?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  32. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sour grapes?

    Yeah it's just another butt-hurt American who can't believe that some country he always thought of as technologically backward, because Hollywood always portrays the third world as dirt roads full of chickens, is actually capable of pulling something like this off. Space used to be the exclusive doman of America (fuck yeah!) since they "won" the space race. The only problem is they declared themselves the victors before the race had really even begun. Now as the tortoise overtakes the sleeping hare, he just tells himself that it doesn't matter, he reached that milepost 40 years ago, there's still plenty of time to sleep...

  33. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Not always. There have been quite a few Mars orbiter failures. In fact I think the current rate is 50-50 for a Mars mission actually succeeding. Look up the "Mars Curse".

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  34. Re:not gonna happen by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Exploiting the poor is nothing new. It's pretty much what happens to poor people everywhere. Once could even go as far as to say that exploiting is what poor people are for. Be it for doing the back-breaking manual labor for a pittance or for convincing into putting their pennies into some "scheme" that doesn't exactly do - when you read the fine print - what they think it does, poor people fall for it every time. All over the world. How much did you pay in credit card fees, bank fees and interest penalties this month?

    Just different countries have different definitions of "poor". A "poor" person in the US probably has an ancient car. Certainly has a TV. Certainly has some sort of roof over their head, even if it's a single-wide trailer. A poor person in latin america doesn't have a car, he walks or takes the bus. He does have a TV though, and a cell phone. I'm not so sure about India - probably no TV. But wait until the standard of living improves - you are going to sell a butt-load of TV's and cell phones... and exploit the poor. They will have less money, but they will have a cell phone (and a bill to pay) and a TV to watch.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  35. Re:not gonna happen by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Blah blah blah you're falling into the black man's trap. Do not come here and tell me that Germany, which has been completely destroyed and bombed not once but TWICE within 50 years can turn around and become a world power again, but poor old India and poor old Africa, they just can't make it because of evil "whitey". Japan was obliterated in the second world war. Japan has not had many natural resources for hundreds of years now. They have absolutely no oil. Yet somehow they seem to dominate.

    So go ahead and keep telling yourself it's other people's fault. That will not change the fact that it's your own society's fault and until you fix those social problems, you will never get ahead.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  36. Re:not gonna happen by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    Your time is over you bloody idiot

    This is where you are wrong. Because some societies are resilient. Yeah there are crises, but we keep bouncing back. It's a question of character. Mind-set. Getting shit done, instead of wasting time blaming someone else.

    You bastands have killed and destroyed locals culture in the name of fucking enlightenment. But ...your time is up.

    It sounds like you would be more than happy to do exactly the same thing. So er, are we both evil then? Or is it just bad when "I" do it? This is called a double standard and it demonstrates that all your rage and hate is actually founded on pure bullshit. So whatever, dude. Drugs are bad, mm'kay?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  37. Hello my name is "Max" by gelfling · · Score: 1

    How may I be helping you with your spaceflight issue today?

  38. Re:not gonna happen by beltsbear · · Score: 1

    I agree but being bombed might actually help (long term) with economic prosperity. People are forced to rebuild and they usually rebuild better then what was there before. When things work (or just barley work) there is less incentive to replace them then if they do not work at all. Being bombed is much harder then not being bombed, but it forces change.

  39. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by oiron · · Score: 1

    Considering that they most probably intend to reuse left-over bits from Chandrayaan, It's at least on the outer realm of probability.

  40. Re:Lots of dead indians floating in space by cobbaut · · Score: 1

    *achievement unlocked: the first to say curry in a thread about india*

    other targets include saying

    -rootkit in a sony thread
    -you're holding it wrong in an apple thread
    -flying chairs in a microsoft thread

    's/curry/call center/g'

    I for one welcome our new Mars Call Center overlords ;-)

    --
    European Linux user, living in Antwerp
  41. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by oiron · · Score: 1

    At ISRO? Peanuts!

    That is, when compared to the salary one would make by working (as a programmer, not a tech support guy) in the IT industry.

    On the other hand, all government scientists get a HELL of a lot of perks, and they get to do some really cool things. Also, when they get out of their government job, the salary they'd make in industry with that experience is maybe double the amount for another guy who's just working in the industry for the same number of years.

  42. Re:Obviously more important than.... by oiron · · Score: 2

    I was wondering where the concern trolls were today...

    80 mil won't make a difference to either, to begin with.

    Besides, drought is a climatic condition. I don't think it makes much difference how much money you throw at it; it's not going to suddenly start raining.

    The power blackouts - why exactly do you think that money is not being spent on the power infrastructure right now?

  43. Re:Neat! But maybe a bit overly spendy... but... by oiron · · Score: 1

    That aid probably goes to states directly. Specifically to the poorest states.

    The space program is run by the central government, not the states. Different beast altogether.

  44. hmm by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    India: world leader. (In misplaced priorities.)

  45. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by SJHillman · · Score: 1

    Better give them nukes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

  46. The biggest chunk of 90 m USD goes to ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    If you guys are surprised by the low price tag of 90m USD for a mars mission, wait till you see the break down. 66% of it is for a dedicated powerplant for the mission control and an undersea power cable to Singapore for the back up power supply.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  47. Re:So, Indians are as dumb as Americans? by amorsen · · Score: 1

    Neither of options 1 through 4 are viable. Well 3) is possible simply because "biggest manufacturer of exotic, zero-g materials" would mean being the largest in a market of a few million dollars. 2) isn't completely ridiculous, but you wouldn't get anywhere on a budget of $80 million.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  48. Re:not gonna happen by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    So you're saying the European colonials should have bombed their colonies, and it's the white man's fault for not doing that? See? The record never changes, it's the same over and over again with some people.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  49. Re:not gonna happen by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Will all of you in this thread please go back to 4Chan?

    Some of us are trying to relax.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  50. And cue the usual comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why does every post about India's space program always have the usual idiot posts?
    1. The unfunny posts about call centers / 7-11 / curries.
    2. The indignant posts about how the money could be better spent Helping the Poor.
    3. The armchair economist posts about the corruption/filthy roads/electricity shortages.

    Ok, we get it already. Indians are poor, corrupt and overstate their ambitions. You are all butt-hurt about your lost jobs. And ho, ho, they eat curries, and say "do the needful" when they answer your tech calls.

    Why can't everyone just appreciate another human endeavor into learning more about the universe we live in, instead of all this pettiness?

    Do we not all benefit from Chandrayaan's imagery?
    Didn't we detect the recent warming over Greenland using data from India's Oceansat?
    Why can't it just be about the science for once?

    1. Re:And cue the usual comments by ooocmyooo · · Score: 1

      looking at how people living in their own poop just causes some quite strong feelings, seeing just another satellite in space not so much.

  51. Re:So, Indians are as dumb as Americans? by amorsen · · Score: 1

    Oh, and by the way, the unviable alternative of satellite internet is currently provided by hughesnet.com, wildbluesales.com, gotSky, starband, and dish network, if I'm not mistaken.

    The request was "cheap, universal, high speed". The existing providers have trouble delivering on even one of those goals.

    As for reversible planetary cooling, I'm also going to guess it'd be cheaper to put that system in place than to pay for the damage caused by changes in weather patterns in places like India and the United States. Just saying.

    The price of something which is impossible to do is somewhat uninteresting.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  52. Re:Lots of dead indians floating in space by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    other targets include saying

    -rootkit in a sony thread
    -you're holding it wrong in an apple thread
    -flying chairs in a microsoft thread

    - bathing and/or toenail jokes in an RMS thread
    - geological time jokes in a hurd thread (extra points when combined with bathing/toenail jokes)

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  53. The trappings of wealth without the wealth by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    India keeps trying to put forth the trappings of wealth without actually having the wealth first. A rich country with a developed infrastructure and minimal poverty has excess wealth that it can spend on this kind of research. A space program is something a rich country develops with excess cash. Or they can show their wealth by regularly going on fabulously expensive foreign military (mis)adventures.

    India has a large GDP, but its per-capita GDP, the one that counts, is very low. 129th in the world, out of 183.

    India needs to develop its infrastructure - roads, rail, electricity, sewers. And become a net exporter instead of a net importer, the model which developing countries typically follow. And stop wasting money on space programs. It's good research, but it's not something they ought to be spending scarce resources on, when their per-capita GDP is so low and infrastructure is so rickety.

  54. I hope they play by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Charanjit Singh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFrKHLjZtSM when the ship takes off...

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  55. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by McGruber · · Score: 1

    Just a few days ago one third of the population of India has been without electricty for a few hours. How about the government invest their money into a stable power grid first.

    It is a good thing the US didn't listen to its citizens in California before launching its Mars missions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

  56. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by shaitand · · Score: 1

    The second time around they get the benefit of the technology they've already developed and the proven staff. So it sounds a bit optimistic but certainly within the realm of reason. If it cost them the same amount and took just as long to repeat the feat a second time it would be kind of sad. It's basically the same project but going a little further, which just means waiting longer for it to arrive when talking about space.

  57. Re:You are employing a nonsenical logical fallacy. by shaitand · · Score: 1

    You need some context for this. Those crying out about government inefficiency (daily rapers) usually want to outsource its functions to the slow fat corporations aka private industry (10x a day rapers).

    I'm sure we'd all prefer to not be raped at all but we shouldn't use that an excuse to dismiss the argument that 1/day rape is better or at least not worse than 10x a day rape!

  58. next step mining gas giants? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    by 2100, it's all too slow, too slow, i want it now, in this lifetime please, i'm not sure if i'm gonna want to come back here anymore. I already posted a request to be stationed at the other side of the galaxy next life.

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  59. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

    A large part of the cost may be due to accounting.
     
    They use an existing rocket; zero development cost there. While Nasa would probably either develop a new rocket just for that mission, and put all the cost of development on the Mars mission, so they could re-use the rocket later at much lower cost for projects they don't have budget for.

    This drivel is modded insightful? It's utter bullshit. For NASA, the money for developing a new booster and for running a planetary probe mission come out of two different pots of money managed by two different centers on opposite sides of the continent. NASA has only developed a new booster specifically for a single mission [NAICT] just once in it's history - the Saturn V. (Note to the pedants - the Juno I doesn't count, it was developed by ABMA and predates NASA.) Other than that, it has either adapted/modified existing boosters (and counted that cost within the cost of the program) or used stock boosters.
     
    No, the Indian probe is most likely cheap because it's low capability and low chance of success. (q.v. Beagle 2.)

  60. Re:Cheap $70-80 million if they stick to the budge by LifeIs0x2A · · Score: 1

    It is a good thing the US didn't listen to its citizens in California before launching its Mars missions:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

    A demand supply gap was created by energy companies, mainly Enron, to create an artificial shortage.

    Doesn't sound like the problem here was a weak power grid. Have you ever been to India? If you look at the rural areas you would realize that the last thing the country needs is a space program. That might be good for prestige, but doesn't address any of their more immediate problems.