Slashdot Mirror


Why India's Mars Probe Was So Cheap

schwit1 (797399) writes "Alan Boyle has some interesting thoughts on why it cost India so little, less than the budget of the movie Gravity, to build and send its probe Mangalyaan to Mars: 'The $74 million Mars Orbiter Mission, also known by the acronym MOM or the Hindi word Mangalyaan ("Mars-Craft"), didn't just cost less than the $100 million Hollywood blockbuster starring Sandra Bullock. The price tag is a mere one-ninth of the cost of NASA's $671 million Maven mission, which also put its spacecraft into Mars orbit this week. The differential definitely hints at a new paradigm for space exploration — one that's taking hold not only in Bangalore, but around the world. At the same time, it hints at the dramatically different objectives for MOM and Maven, and the dramatically different environments in which those missions took shape.' Read it all. It gives us a hint at the future of space exploration.

18 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. They outsourced their engineering to India by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Honestly, is there no lever the Indian government won't sink to to save money?

  2. Re:Risk management? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Faster, Cheaper, Better.

    Pick any two....

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Tricky to count costs in government projects by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its not easy to compare costs for projects done by different governments. There are different accounting standards for what is "in" and "out" of the project costs. I know nothing about the rules in India, but in Europe, scientific / engineering labor is not included in the "project". I expect the Indian probe was less expensive than a comparable NASA probe, but maybe not by nearly as large a margin as it seems.

    This doesn't detract from the mission being a great success for India.

    1. Re:Tricky to count costs in government projects by multimediavt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it just is not accounted for in the budget of the project. For instance, in the U.S. the National Science Foundation (NSF) often will not fund certain portions of a grant because it is expected that the research organiztion picks up those costs (i.e., for computing hardware, networking, rent, electricity, etc.). These costs are not accounted for in the NSF accounting for the project and can be significant depedning on the research being done. The research organization accounts for this, but NSF's cost (the gov't cost) is lower than the overall project cost. In reference to the projects of discussion, NASA may be accounting for more aspects of the project than the Indian government agency is accounting for in their reports.

  4. Way to compare apples to light bulbs by Enry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article spells out the differences - the India probe took longer, weighed less, has fewer experiments, and probably won't last long. Meanwhile the NASA probe got there quickly, weighs 4 times more, has twice the number of experiments, and can serve as a communication relay for probes on the ground.

    I can drive across country in a $5000 car, a $50,000 car, or a $500,000 truck. Each of them have different purposes and will get you there in different ways. To say NASA needs to only use the $5000 car isn't in our long term interest.

    1. Re:Way to compare apples to light bulbs by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      To say NASA needs to only use the $5000 car isn't in our long term interest.

      I couldn't agree more. Using a $5000 car would make NASA nearly irrelevant as a space agency.

    2. Re:Way to compare apples to light bulbs by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another HUGE thing to consider that "Government Waste" is not always government waste.

      If it costs $120,000 to keep a top level engineer employed at NASA and they compete with a $20,000 engineer in India -- that isn't $100,000 of waste. That's +$100,000 to our GDP, and someone sending their kids to college.

      The true meaning of Waste is a cut to taxes on financial instruments that end up becoming offshore investments. Extra "profits" are things you need to worry about in a free market economy -- not people pulling in a paycheck.

      I want to live next to that Engineer at NASA, I want my kids to go to boyscouts with his kids, and I don't want everyone to have families arguing over bills -- THAT is the hidden cost to bean counters trying to micromanage society.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  5. Re:I'm gonna go with by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    hahahhahahaha.. Oh man. You are hilarious.
    Anyone who thinks American bureaucracy is over bearing and paralyzing clearly hasn't dealt with other government.
    My experience with the India's bureaucracy was that it is the worst. Sudden fees(Bribes*) , being shuffled to other family members fr more sudden fees*. It's realy bad.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
    http://www.bbc.com/news/102276...

    I have good news for you** the American Bureaucracy is pretty damn efficient and honest.

    *really bribes as in, it's going into this guys pocket.

    **sadly, like most Americans these, you won't like facts and just ignore this good news it it's counter to you belief.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. Re:I'm gonna go with by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh, India's government totally has a large (and corrupt) bureaucracy: As usual, basic information courtesy of Wikipedia.

    Say what you want about the US(and there's plenty to say), you won't be paying "facilitation fees" to report a crime in the US, and none of our national elected officials are currently under any serious suspicion of murder.

    Now, I'm not sure what exactly this means about the interaction between space research and cost, but the "lack of bureaucracy" is a bit out of touch with the reality in India.

    I'd lean towards:
    A. Everything being more expensive in the US. That's the first world for you. Everyone involved here wants a decent standard of living.
    B. We have a hugely entrenched corporate aerospace industry, that has their hooks in every space project.

    Could be something else too, the world's complicated, but "bureaucracy" is a bumper-sticker explanation that doesn't accurately describe differences between the US and India.

  7. Re:to sum it up: by Scottingham · · Score: 5, Funny

    I had no idea what besan or jackfruit were... I will now stop comparing the two.

  8. Re:I'm gonna go with by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is because in the US, it is the upper crust who are allowed to bribe. Regular everyday bureaucrats and gov. officials are fired/prosecuted for bribing. However once you climb above the bottom tier or two you find a good old boys network full of corporate campaign donations, lobbyist dinners, regulatory capture, backroom deals, etc. The corruption is there, but the public is blinded to it, because at least the police busted that person expediting taxi licenses for coke, and the clerk that was deleting parking tickets for half price. Oh and football!

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  9. Re: No US Contractors by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Funny

    India is well known for its lack of corruption.

  10. Who cares? by boristdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whatever the cost, it just got over a billion people excited about space again.

  11. Re:I'm gonna go with by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Say what you want about the US(and there's plenty to say)

    And you call this covering up US corruption? Look, bro, I know you need the US government to be evil and the worst thing ever, for whatever political beliefs you've got there, but frankly, most of the world is doing worse. We have a lot of really reliable and good institutions to help deal with corruption. We have plenty of problems too, but we're simply not under the evil tyranny your overextended teenage rebellion needs.

    The fact that a lot of what you're saying here is also objectively wrong(Seriously Clinton "killing" stevens?) is kinda secondary to the fact that you're brewing up an image that's unhealthily paranoid in general.

  12. if so, U.S. is stupid by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the US spent six times as much in order to reduce the risk of failure, that would be STUPID.
    It would make much more sense to send two cheap probes and have one fail. That would be one third the cost.

    1. Re:if so, U.S. is stupid by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would make much more sense to send two cheap probes and have one fail. That would be one third the cost.

      It would cost less than that, since much of the cost is NRE. But if the chance of failure is, say, 10%, that does NOT mean that the chance of both failing is only 1%. Failures are not random independent events. Failures are often the result of design or programming flaws, so whatever made the first probe fail might also make the second fail if they share design features or code.

  13. Re:I'm gonna go with by scamper_22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not sure what connotation you are implying, but this is a good thing.

    That the general public and general worker is not accustomed to bribery is a good thing.

    Yes, it would be better if the upper crust didn't bribe as well. But understand that bribery for the average person is horrible.

    Being pulled over by police looking for a bribe.
    Getting your passport takes a bribe.
    Teachers take bribes for grades. ...

    Those are issues that would affect and ruin most interactions of most regular people. Thank god, us regular people are 'not allowed' to bribe. Most of us who grew up in countries like that know what kind of environment it is.

    Let's face it if it is a choice between BIGCORPA and BIGCORPB getting a big government contract and there is bribery involved, it doesn't affect the average person on a day to day level. Yes, it is wrong. Yes, it should be fixed. But you cannot compare this high level corruption to the day to day corruption that infects your daily life.

  14. NASA in Vegas by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA pointed out that India is a lot more forgiving of failure and fast iteration than the US is today.

    NASA tried the "faster, better, cheaper" (FBC) approach in the 90's with roughly a 50% success rate. UK also tried a "cheap" Mars lander, the Beagle, that was a bust.

    If India can demonstrate they can KEEP going cheap and be successful, then we can conclude they are on to something. NASA's FBC also looked good at the start.

    It's too early to tell for India. And even if they could get up to a 70% success rate, the 30% failure rate could be seen as a national embarrassment by some standards. Although, maybe a 3rd-world country may be more tolerable of such, being seen as underdog newbies.

    It's also hard to plan science and control staffing if 30% of your probes are duds; and by sheer probability, 2 or 3 could fail in a row even at a 70% average, leaving a decade of gaps.