-
Is India's space program really low cost ?
by
abhishek
on 30 Sep, 2014 03:02
-
So last night I was reading an article on the Business standard about MOM where the author was talking about the serious cost underestimation by ISRO.
He says that the project expenditure of 450 crores or 75 million $ does not include salaries or the cost incurred at various labs.According to his calculation the total expenditure might have crossed over 1000 crores or about 167 million $.
If this is true then considering the payload it carries and the mission objectives,I would see it as a super expensive and not a supercheap mission.
It's not known empirically as to how much ISRO charges per kilo but according to media sources, it's around 20,000 $ to 25,000 $ which is at par at international rates.
Atlas V 401: (13,812 US$/kgLEO ∗9,050 kgLEO4,950 kgGTO)+10%=27,777 US$/kgGTO
Delta IV Heavy: (13,072 US$/kgLEO ∗22,950 kgLEO12,980 kgGTO)+10%=25,424 US$/kgGTO
Ariane 5 ECA: (10,476 US$/kgLEO ∗21,000 kgLEO10,050 kgGTO)+10%=24,079 US$/kgGTO
Ariane 5 ES: (10,476 US$/kgLEO ∗21,000 kgLEO8,000 kgGTO)+10%=30,249 US$/kgGTO
Proton-M: (4,302 US$/kgLEO ∗21,600 kgLEO6,150 kgGTO)+10%=16,620 US$/kgGTO
Also SpaceX charges around 4000$/kg for it's falcon 9
-
#1
by
baldusi
on 30 Sep, 2014 12:57
-
Falcon 9 v1.1 can only do 3,600kg at the 1,500m/s GTO that the rest do. That's 16,700USD/kg to GTO. So it is about there.
What I can't believe is that you state that 167M is an expensive mission. Name me one mission to Mars that was cheaper. In current dollars, nothing was below 300M or so. And this was on the first try!
-
#2
by
Kryten
on 30 Sep, 2014 13:40
-
Phobos-Grunt was predicted to have a total budget roughly equal to that (5 billion rubles~160 million dollars) for a much more capable mission, but it seems they made many of their costs savings by scrimping on testing, with results I shouldn't have to remind anyone about.
-
#3
by
cave_dweller
on 01 Oct, 2014 00:49
-
The cost of PSLV-XL launch is $25 Million (US).
The cost of MOM probe is $50 Million
MOM Mission Weight Profile:
Launch mass 1,337 kg (2,948 lb)
Dry mass 500 kg (1,100 lb)
Payload mass 15 kg (33 lb)
Therefore, launch cost per KG of lauch mass is:
$25 M/ 1337 Kg = $18,698 / Kg.
The real savings then might have come from probe development costs.
My understanding is the majority of the instruments on MOM are reused designs developed for Earth observation. This would mean that ISRO did not have the overhead of having to develop fundamental technologies from scratch as may have been the case with other space agencies.
But then, MOM is a technology demonstrator. And the main objectives of the mission are:
1) Being able to Launch -- Success
2) Escape Earth Gravity -- Success
3) Enter into Helio-Centric Orbit towards Mars -- Success
4) Arrive at Mars -- Success
5) Enter into an elliptical Mars Orbit in full autonomous operating mode -- Success (the signal propagation delay between Mars and Earth is an average of 12 mins)
6) Observe Mars -- Ongoing
7) Crash on to Mars -- 6 to 9 months from now
And I think India is prudent in keeping the costs minimal so as to be protected from the size of loss should the launch or the probe have failed or fail. I think the ISRO approach is very smart and effective.
I think we can safely say ISRO has mastered orbital mechanics. This was demonstrated both by Chandrayaan-1 and MOM mission. The fact that ISRO was able to achieve heliocentric orbit pretty much means that the road is clear for:
1) Sun Observation Mission from LaGrange Point
2) Venus Mission
3) Mercury Mission
For the most part ISRO might be ready to go to Jupiter and beyond. But it may be that ISRO needs to figure out a path and an autonomous methodology to navigate past the asteroid field (which I am sure is quite complicated).
But anyway, to answer your question: @ $18,698 /Kg of launch weight, I think ISRO is highly competitive.
-
#4
by
vineethgk
on 01 Oct, 2014 06:07
-
1) Being able to Launch -- Success
2) Escape Earth Gravity -- Success
3) Enter into Helio-Centric Orbit towards Mars -- Success
4) Arrive at Mars -- Success
5) Enter into an elliptical Mars Orbit in full autonomous operating mode -- Success (the signal propagation delay between Mars and Earth is an average of 12 mins)
6) Observe Mars -- Ongoing
7) Crash on to Mars -- 6 to 9 months from now
Crash on to Mars?? Are you
really sure that is an objective? Never mind the question of whether any scientific knowledge can be gained out of doing it, but did the spacecraft undergo the level of microbial decontamination that is required of a Mars landing? If not, with the tenuous atmosphere of Mars, isn't it probable that parts of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and bring earth's microbes to its surface? This is not Moon we are speaking about, as the question of Mars's capability to sustain microbial life isn't resolved yet. The worst nightmare that can happen to our efforts to find answers for Mars would be to find earth's microbes colonizing it.
-
#5
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 01 Oct, 2014 11:48
-
MOM is going to crash on Mars sometime in the future anyway (unless it is recovered, which is probably unlikely). By doing it at the end of the mission, its in a controlled fashion into a known location. It also removes any possibility of creating future orbital debris around Mars.
-
#6
by
abhishek
on 01 Oct, 2014 14:51
-
Falcon 9 v1.1 can only do 3,600kg at the 1,500m/s GTO that the rest do. That's 16,700USD/kg to GTO. So it is about there.
What I can't believe is that you state that 167M is an expensive mission. Name me one mission to Mars that was cheaper. In current dollars, nothing was below 300M or so. And this was on the first try!
I don't see spending 167 million $ for a 15 kg payload consisting of rudimentary instruments a good deal.
But anyways I think that the paper is hugely exaggerating the cost.All of India's expenditure is properly audited and there might have been a miscalculation of 5% but a 50-100% is pretty impossible.
-
#7
by
cave_dweller
on 01 Oct, 2014 19:02
-
1) Being able to Launch -- Success
2) Escape Earth Gravity -- Success
3) Enter into Helio-Centric Orbit towards Mars -- Success
4) Arrive at Mars -- Success
5) Enter into an elliptical Mars Orbit in full autonomous operating mode -- Success (the signal propagation delay between Mars and Earth is an average of 12 mins)
6) Observe Mars -- Ongoing
7) Crash on to Mars -- 6 to 9 months from now
Crash on to Mars?? Are you really sure that is an objective? Never mind the question of whether any scientific knowledge can be gained out of doing it, but did the spacecraft undergo the level of microbial decontamination that is required of a Mars landing? If not, with the tenuous atmosphere of Mars, isn't it probable that parts of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and bring earth's microbes to its surface? This is not Moon we are speaking about, as the question of Mars's capability to sustain microbial life isn't resolved yet. The worst nightmare that can happen to our efforts to find answers for Mars would be to find earth's microbes colonizing it.
I am fairly sure that it would be a controlled crash. It is possible to study layers of martian atmosphere to an extent during the descent. And further experiments in co-ordination with an observing craft might also be possible.
I think it is extremely hard (near impossible) to scrub any Earth developed craft of microbial life. If the organism did actually survive the harshness of 300 day/650 Million KM journey -- then it probably will survive any earth cleansing mechanisms.
I think for better or worse we have to accept the outcomes of unintended effects of our own curiosity. I personally don't think it is possible to avoid "observer bias/effect".
-
#8
by
ChrisWilson68
on 01 Oct, 2014 19:20
-
I think it is extremely hard (near impossible) to scrub any Earth developed craft of microbial life. If the organism did actually survive the harshness of 300 day/650 Million KM journey -- then it probably will survive any earth cleansing mechanisms.
That doesn't make sense. There are plenty of conditions we can create on Earth that are different from what would be encountered in space and on a crash on Mars. Even something as simple as scrubbing with bleach would be different.
Are you aware that when NASA sends probes to the surface Mars they do in fact go to a lot of trouble to try to kill off microbes that might go along?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection
-
#9
by
ChrisWilson68
on 01 Oct, 2014 19:27
-
Falcon 9 v1.1 can only do 3,600kg at the 1,500m/s GTO that the rest do. That's 16,700USD/kg to GTO. So it is about there.
What I can't believe is that you state that 167M is an expensive mission. Name me one mission to Mars that was cheaper. In current dollars, nothing was below 300M or so. And this was on the first try!
I don't see spending 167 million $ for a 15 kg payload consisting of rudimentary instruments a good deal.
But anyways I think that the paper is hugely exaggerating the cost.All of India's expenditure is properly audited and there might have been a miscalculation of 5% but a 50-100% is pretty impossible.
Whether they were audited or not isn't the issue. In accounting, there are always choices to be made about where to assign costs. This is particularly an issue with fixed costs. Apparently, India is saying the labs would have paid these salaries anyway, so they're fixed costs that shouldn't be charged to the construction of the probe. But that ignores the opportunity cost -- if those people hadn't been working on the probe, they would have been doing something else useful.
It's perfectly legitimate to critique how costs are accounted for.
-
#10
by
baldusi
on 01 Oct, 2014 23:08
-
Not to mention all the preliminary work that might not have been assigned .
-
#11
by
cave_dweller
on 01 Oct, 2014 23:38
-
Falcon 9 v1.1 can only do 3,600kg at the 1,500m/s GTO that the rest do. That's 16,700USD/kg to GTO. So it is about there.
What I can't believe is that you state that 167M is an expensive mission. Name me one mission to Mars that was cheaper. In current dollars, nothing was below 300M or so. And this was on the first try!
I don't see spending 167 million $ for a 15 kg payload consisting of rudimentary instruments a good deal.
But anyways I think that the paper is hugely exaggerating the cost.All of India's expenditure is properly audited and there might have been a miscalculation of 5% but a 50-100% is pretty impossible.
India will be able to send heavier payloads with GSLV MK II (Launch cost $USD 36 million) and eventually GSLV MK III (Launch cost unknown -- but may be comparable to MK II).
PSLV GTO Payload: 1400 Kgs
GSLV MKII GTO Payload: 2500 Kgs
GSLV MKIII GTO Payload: 5000 Kgs
-
#12
by
cave_dweller
on 01 Oct, 2014 23:55
-
I think it is extremely hard (near impossible) to scrub any Earth developed craft of microbial life. If the organism did actually survive the harshness of 300 day/650 Million KM journey -- then it probably will survive any earth cleansing mechanisms.
That doesn't make sense. There are plenty of conditions we can create on Earth that are different from what would be encountered in space and on a crash on Mars. Even something as simple as scrubbing with bleach would be different.
Are you aware that when NASA sends probes to the surface Mars they do in fact go to a lot of trouble to try to kill off microbes that might go along?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection
I agree that NASA does go through a lot of trouble to scrub the probes. But that scrubbing does not guarantee 100% sterility.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/technology/is_planetary_protection.htmlThe primary strategy for preventing contamination of Mars with Earth organisms is to be sure that the hardware intended to reach the planet is clean. Each Mars Exploration Rover complied with requirements to carry a total of no more than 300,000 bacterial spores on any surface from which the spores could get into the martian environment. Technicians assembling the spacecraft and preparing them for launch frequently cleaned surfaces by wiping them with an alcohol solution. The planetary protection team carefully sampled the surfaces and performed microbiology tests to demonstrate that each spacecraft meets requirements for biological cleanliness. Components tolerant of high temperature, such as the parachute and thermal blanketing, were heated to 110 degrees Celsius (230 Fahrenheit) or hotter to kill microbes. The core box of each rover, containing the main computer and other key electronics, is sealed and vented through high-efficiency filters that keep any microbes inside. Some smaller electronics compartments are also isolated in this manner. Its due diligence. But its no guarantee that absolutely no microbial organisms get a free ride.
And despite the due diligence, it appears sometimes human error (intentionally or otherwise) gets the better of processes and ideals.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/05/21/curiosity-rover-may-have-carried-bacterial-life-to-mars/#.VCyT6-dWlCY
-
#13
by
Moe Grills
on 04 Oct, 2014 16:51
-
So last night I was reading an article on the Business standard about MOM where the author was talking about the serious cost underestimation by ISRO.
He says that the project expenditure of 450 crores or 75 million $ does not include salaries or the cost incurred at various labs.According to his calculation the total expenditure might have crossed over 1000 crores or about 167 million $.
If this is true then considering the payload it carries and the mission objectives,I would see it as a super expensive and not a supercheap mission.
It's not known empirically as to how much ISRO charges per kilo but according to media sources, it's around 20,000 $ to 25,000 $ which is at par at international rates.
Atlas V 401: (13,812 US$/kgLEO ∗9,050 kgLEO4,950 kgGTO)+10%=27,777 US$/kgGTO
Delta IV Heavy: (13,072 US$/kgLEO ∗22,950 kgLEO12,980 kgGTO)+10%=25,424 US$/kgGTO
Ariane 5 ECA: (10,476 US$/kgLEO ∗21,000 kgLEO10,050 kgGTO)+10%=24,079 US$/kgGTO
Ariane 5 ES: (10,476 US$/kgLEO ∗21,000 kgLEO8,000 kgGTO)+10%=30,249 US$/kgGTO
Proton-M: (4,302 US$/kgLEO ∗21,600 kgLEO6,150 kgGTO)+10%=16,620 US$/kgGTO
Also SpaceX charges around 4000$/kg for it's falcon 9
The answer is yes.
MOM was less expensive than MAVEN because production/development costs in America are outrageously high.
Imagine! The MOM project could have been funded entirely from a portion of the profits of the BBC documentary TV series ironically called, The Planet Earth.
-
#14
by
hop
on 04 Oct, 2014 18:04
-
MOM was less expensive than MAVEN because production/development costs in America are outrageously high.
Not really. Much of the difference is due to MAVEN being a larger, more capable mission.
MOM has approximately 1/4 the science payload mass and 1/2 nominal mission duration. Very roughly this equates to 1/8th the science.
If you accept the $75M total cost, this is about 1/9th the cost of MAVEN (~$670M). As noted elsewhere, a "mission cost" directly comparable to MAVEN would likely be more than $75M. Considering how much more heritage and experience MAVEN had to start with, MOM is still impressively cheap.
-
#15
by
sanman
on 17 Oct, 2014 21:10
-
-
#16
by
Dalhousie
on 18 Oct, 2014 01:34
-
Falcon 9 v1.1 can only do 3,600kg at the 1,500m/s GTO that the rest do. That's 16,700USD/kg to GTO. So it is about there.
What I can't believe is that you state that 167M is an expensive mission. Name me one mission to Mars that was cheaper. In current dollars, nothing was below 300M or so. And this was on the first try!
I don't see spending 167 million $ for a 15 kg payload consisting of rudimentary instruments a good deal.
But anyways I think that the paper is hugely exaggerating the cost.All of India's expenditure is properly audited and there might have been a miscalculation of 5% but a 50-100% is pretty impossible.
I don't see anything rudimentary about the payload. They are good instruments and will deliver good results.
-
#17
by
abhishek
on 20 Oct, 2014 21:06
-
I don't see anything rudimentary about the payload. They are good instruments and will deliver good results.
I am not criticizing the mission.It's value for money
-
#18
by
Vultur
on 21 Oct, 2014 00:22
-
1) Being able to Launch -- Success
2) Escape Earth Gravity -- Success
3) Enter into Helio-Centric Orbit towards Mars -- Success
4) Arrive at Mars -- Success
5) Enter into an elliptical Mars Orbit in full autonomous operating mode -- Success (the signal propagation delay between Mars and Earth is an average of 12 mins)
6) Observe Mars -- Ongoing
7) Crash on to Mars -- 6 to 9 months from now
Crash on to Mars?? Are you really sure that is an objective? Never mind the question of whether any scientific knowledge can be gained out of doing it, but did the spacecraft undergo the level of microbial decontamination that is required of a Mars landing? If not, with the tenuous atmosphere of Mars, isn't it probable that parts of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and bring earth's microbes to its surface? This is not Moon we are speaking about, as the question of Mars's capability to sustain microbial life isn't resolved yet. The worst nightmare that can happen to our efforts to find answers for Mars would be to find earth's microbes colonizing it.
I doubt a colonization by Earth microbes would wreck our scientific results. Modern techniques would make the distinction easily -- we can do far more than the Viking Labeled Release experiments. Also, such a colonization would probably be incredibly localized (at least on any human time scale) - Mars is not a very hospitable environment.
-
#19
by
Dalhousie
on 21 Oct, 2014 01:01
-
1) Being able to Launch -- Success
2) Escape Earth Gravity -- Success
3) Enter into Helio-Centric Orbit towards Mars -- Success
4) Arrive at Mars -- Success
5) Enter into an elliptical Mars Orbit in full autonomous operating mode -- Success (the signal propagation delay between Mars and Earth is an average of 12 mins)
6) Observe Mars -- Ongoing
7) Crash on to Mars -- 6 to 9 months from now
Crash on to Mars?? Are you really sure that is an objective? Never mind the question of whether any scientific knowledge can be gained out of doing it, but did the spacecraft undergo the level of microbial decontamination that is required of a Mars landing? If not, with the tenuous atmosphere of Mars, isn't it probable that parts of the spacecraft will survive re-entry and bring earth's microbes to its surface? This is not Moon we are speaking about, as the question of Mars's capability to sustain microbial life isn't resolved yet. The worst nightmare that can happen to our efforts to find answers for Mars would be to find earth's microbes colonizing it.
I doubt a colonization by Earth microbes would wreck our scientific results. Modern techniques would make the distinction easily -- we can do far more than the Viking Labeled Release experiments. Also, such a colonization would probably be incredibly localized (at least on any human time scale) - Mars is not a very hospitable environment.
MOM's mission isn't going to end in 6-9 months, it's primary mission, Indian sources say it is a terrestrail year. It hopefully will work for a lot longer. Orbital declay will take presumably take decades.
As far as detection whether life is indigenous or terrestrial contamination, while terrestrial labs can do this it's well beyond the capability of the type of equipment we might send to Mars.
