Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 190 posts

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#161

Post by josho »

efuquen wrote: post #99
TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If India really did make it to mars before the US did, we would probably congradulate them, not try to compete with them. When the USSR put Sputnik into space, the US's response wasn't because oh no we need to beat them to the moon! it was because the fact that they could put a satellite into space meant they could also land a nuclear warhead on US soil.

> not try to compete with them I seriously doubt this. Sure, it wouldn't be seen as a threat, but it certainly would be seen as a clear sign of America's decay in technological leadership and capabilities. > oh no we need to beat them to the moon! Everything I've seen documented from that era actually points to this being exactly the attitude. Sending satellites into orbit and launching ballistic missiles with nuclea…

It really depends what your source material is. Anything geared to the masses will site US innovation and competitive spirit. Anything geared to the political/military class focuses on how Russian rockets were superior to the US, and that the US had to catch up and surpass the Russians.

If you take away the cold war background, many observers seriously doubt that the Americans would have bothered going to the moon.

And yes, both countries wanted to beat each other in a game of technological machismo, because they were convinced that the other side was going to be a military aggressor if they didn't. That is something missing from today with China/India, and why I doubt the US would care much if those countries space programs surpassed the US.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#162

Post by TylerE »

rzimmerman wrote: post #104
shas3 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curiosity is a rover. Rovers require cleanrooms for assembly for the reasons that you just mentioned, since they land. I don't think this is an issue with orbiters. For example, one of the reasons failing orbiters are of concern is that contamination can be an issue if they crash into the surface. See Japanese orbiter Nozomi, for example: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2003/11/29/national/experts... Using the exper…

In the MRO image it's hard to see, but I'm pretty sure they are wearing thin white gloves (probably nitrile). The ESA picture says its from a thermal and mass model, and the guy in question is hovering over a test fixture. I can't say much about the ISRO video. I hope it's just press footage of something that isn't the actual flight unit. That would be pretty reasonable. Later in the video you can see the techs weari…

I've never seen white nitrile gloves. As one of the main use cases for nitrile is avoiding latex allergies they are almost always colored (usually blue or purple) to make it clear they aren't latex.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#163

Post by anupshinde »

kamaal wrote: post #97
sid1992 wrote: post #87

Go to ISRO's website and look at the starting salary for an engineer. Even for the most paid fields there it is not more than 40000 rupees per month or roughly 650 dollars

I was downvoted very badly yesterday for just saying ISRO engineers were paid less. Actually comparatively even compared to many Indian IT professionals salaries of these folks is actually low. Most people don't realize how low it is until you start comparing yourself with people of your same age some 10-15 years in to your career who are working with other software companies. Any decent IIT grad joining something li…

Aren't you discounting the perks? I agree some IT guys like me earn in multiples of that - but most don't. And what about the amazing work-life balance (more life less work), job security and "serving-the-country" feeling. Compare that to a heavily stressful job, waking up at 3AM because some server in SF stopped executing some code that was written in SF. And absolutely no job security (I don't really care about job security). And constantly having that feeling "What if I could make this amazing product for my country"

I'd exchange so-called-high paying job to get a job like ISRO now (Somebody misguided me in my early days with the same logic you mentioned)

Obviously IT guys get paid a lot when they settle in US. I can tell you most of these guys are skilled a lot and can do that with little effort - Nobody's stopping them. And when they do, they earn in multiples than most of the IT jobs there.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#164

Post by seanflyon »

innguest wrote: post #153
innguest wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Everything the government does is more expensive than that same thing done by the free market (this is by definition, as the government creates bureaucracy around each of its endeavors) - Is the Mars mission the best allocation of those resources right now? - Could this money generate more wealth, or the same wealth faster, if it were allocated elsewhere? (for instance, savings generating higher interest rates and…

Why do people keep downvoting me? This is on point with the discussion and it is in the same tone of the surrounding conversation. The only difference I see is that I'm arguing the other side. Are downvotes votes of disagreement? If so, everyone should be able to downvote.

Statement like "this is by definition" do not add to the conversation, especially when they are clearly false. If you want to argue that government are less efficient because they have more bureaucracy then make the argument. I generally agree, but it is not by definition and there are many counterexamples (such as this Indian mars mission).

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#165

Post by Solarsail »

leoedin wrote: post #128
jonwachob91 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shuttle was never primarily used to send Satellites into space... It was used primarily for maned missions. The Atlas V is the current standard for putting satellites into space. Sierra Nevada Corporation puts a satellite into orbit almost once a week. The pain you speak of is non existent.

> The pain you speak of is non existent. That's simply untrue. Access to launchers is the bottleneck to satellite development. Large institutional customers have access to space, but almost nobody else does. The commercial satellite industry has been shaped by the shortage of launchers, with satellites designed to be launched infrequently with long design lives. As a result everything is tremendously expensive. This…

Doesn't this assume that SpaceX will succeed at reducing launch costs? If you look at volume, I don't see what you're getting at here. Almost nobody except for maybe Ariane V is operating at capacity. Delta IV tried selling commercially for years, they've yet to have one sale. Torus (I) and Athena were never exactly booked full.

A point I believe Antonio Elias made a couple years ago (I quite him a lot...) was that the satellite market is currently quite inelastic. Both when Russian launchers became available to the west, and with cheap Chinese launchers hit the market, global launch rates didn't really increase. Clients just moved around, and pocketed the difference.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#166

Post by stcredzero »

TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #89
stcredzero wrote: post #38

I hope India and China pull off a Mars Direct style mission and beat the US to Mars. The US needs another "Sputnik Moment" to get itself going in space again. I mean for real, not as an esoteric form of federal "pork."

If India really did make it to mars before the US did, we would probably congradulate them, not try to compete with them. When the USSR put Sputnik into space, the US's response wasn't because oh no we need to beat them to the moon! it was because the fact that they could put a satellite into space meant they could also land a nuclear warhead on US soil.

it was because the fact that they could put a satellite into space meant they could also land a nuclear warhead on US soil.

It was not only that, however. There was also a competition between two different forms of government and societal organization. I would bet that many in the US would experience anxiety about our "declining status as a superpower" if another country were to beat us to Mars.

Also, in the long term, if only non-western cultures expand into the solar system, they will surpass the western nations. The Earth will become a major but junior member of a coalition in a larger political context, in the same way that the UK has become a major but junior partner in the power bloc centered around the US. Just as the UK now crews Trident missile subs built by the US, the Earth will retain considerable autonomy but will ultimately answer to the Solar System wide civilization that controls the strategic high ground outside of the Earth's gravity well.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#167

Post by anigbrowl »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #140
anigbrowl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's wrong, and so are you. The 'broken window Fallacy' is Bastiat's observation that while the income generated for glaziers from repairing rboken windows is indeed a form of economic activity, and that this is nice enough if you're in the window business, it's economically inefficient because the economic activity merely restores the status quo instead of going to finance new production - had the window rem…

But that's a wholly inappropriate analogy for this situation of expenditure going towards Indian scientists and technicians, because they were engaged in new and productive work... You've completely ignored what Zizee said and substituted a different argument. Zizee said this: Let's just forget for a moment that valuable skills and infrastructure are being created... Zizee is claiming that even if the mars mission we…

'But even if the direct economic output of the craft itself is assumed to be zero, the development of the satellite manufacturing and launch capability, which is a net economic gain too, whereas the replacement of a broken window does not have any innovative component (since the prior existence of the window means the capability to make it already existed).'

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#168

Post by anigbrowl »

radisb wrote: post #130
anigbrowl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's wrong, and so are you. The 'broken window Fallacy' is Bastiat's observation that while the income generated for glaziers from repairing rboken windows is indeed a form of economic activity, and that this is nice enough if you're in the window business, it's economically inefficient because the economic activity merely restores the status quo instead of going to finance new production - had the window rem…

> because they were engaged in new and productive work Well, new and productive work is not equivalent to valuable work, for possibly a pretty big number of definitions of "valuable". Of course, "valuable" is subjective. I mean, of course, in the global future context, this endeavor may contribute a lot of value, but what if I am starving and I probably wont be there to take advantage of that value? With sufficient p…

Economies run in parallel, not in series. As I pointed out elsewhere, this success is likely to attract a lot of outside investment to India as other countries and firms will want to take advantage of India's low-cost space expertise (and possibly avoid dealing with the US government and its complex technology-transfer rules). So spending $100 million demonstrating your space capabilitiies is a fantastic deal if it results in billions flowing into the country, which I confidently predict it will.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#169

Post by anigbrowl »

philh wrote: post #129
anigbrowl wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because he's wrong, and so are you. The 'broken window Fallacy' is Bastiat's observation that while the income generated for glaziers from repairing rboken windows is indeed a form of economic activity, and that this is nice enough if you're in the window business, it's economically inefficient because the economic activity merely restores the status quo instead of going to finance new production - had the window rem…

I don't think this reply works. Situation 1: There is a window. It gets broken. The shopkeeper pays for it to be replaced, instead of buying a book. Situation 2: There is no window, and there is no need for a window. But the shopkeeper pays for a window anyway, instead of buying a book. Situation 1 is restoring the status quo, situation 2 is financing new production - but they seem equally bad, because in both cases…

Situation 2: There is no window, and there is no need for a window. But the shopkeeper pays for a window anyway, instead of buying a book.

There's no need for any voluntary purchase, by definition. You're arguing that we should only spend so as to maximize utility, but utility is subjective and that's why we value markets over individuals. After all, what is the utility of the foregone book? It may merely afford pleasure to the reader, or be hurled across the room. It doesn't matter; the book's significance lies not in its content but in the fact of its production, for which the demand would not otherwise exist if the same money had been spent on the repair of a broken window.

Re: Why India's Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

#170

Post by philh »

anigbrowl wrote: post #169
philh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this reply works. Situation 1: There is a window. It gets broken. The shopkeeper pays for it to be replaced, instead of buying a book. Situation 2: There is no window, and there is no need for a window. But the shopkeeper pays for a window anyway, instead of buying a book. Situation 1 is restoring the status quo, situation 2 is financing new production - but they seem equally bad, because in both cases…

Situation 2: There is no window, and there is no need for a window. But the shopkeeper pays for a window anyway, instead of buying a book. There's no need for any voluntary purchase, by definition. You're arguing that we should only spend so as to maximize utility, but utility is subjective and that's why we value markets over individuals. After all, what is the utility of the foregone book? It may merely afford plea…

> You're arguing that we should only spend so as to maximize utility, but utility is subjective and that's why we value markets over individuals.

Um. I'm probably misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you're suggesting that we should force people to buy things they don't want or need in order to make the market healthy?

If you are saying that, I strongly disagree. Both causally (I don't think that will make the market healthy) and normatively (even if it did, I would need a lot of convincing to advocate that).

If you're not, could you clarify?

> for which the demand would not otherwise exist if the same money had been spent on the repair of a broken window.

Or if the money had been spent on any window.

By "there is no need for a window", I meant "nobody cares if there's a window there". In both situations, money transfers from the shopkeeper to the glazier, the glazier does some glazing, and the shopkeeper ends up no better off than before.

Post reply on HN