This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
These titles are dumb.
"NASA's 1969 moon landing was with a computer that can't even power Doom!"
Did you know scientists created ways to use crabs as logic gates?
Someone calculated we need about 8 billion crabs in order to run Doom.
Now that is scientific fact. There’s no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.
That's a crab fact.
Now you're talking Nonce Sense.
Pretty sure that was the amount to store the files for the game, not actually run it.
They did surgery on a grape
"India's Moonventure: When Bollywood Met the Lunar Blockbuster"
Aside from different approaches I think the biggest factor is salary difference. Still impressive though a good example for other Asian nations.
Modern US space projects are also basically welfare programs for aerospace companies.
Can we not have the hundred identical stupid jokes in the comment section like we did in reddit?
It's a human thing not a Reddit thing
How dare people have fun
Can we not compare a science fiction film about traversing entire solar systems and fucking time travel to landing on the...moon?
Yeah but interstellar went to a black hole and back
But Interstellar had a box office of $715 million.
The astronautics is a very expensive sector and with completely uncertain returns on earnings.
Bollywood should start filming on-site.
Why is this even a comparison? India only went to the moon, interstellar had to go to other freaking solar systems and a black hole to make their documentary!
Cool.
The average income in India is 25x ish less than that of the US. If we scale the $75 million cost to land on the moon by 25 times, we get $1.8 billion. The Perseverance rover's cost is estimated at $2.75 billion and that thing landed on Mars.
It's incredibly impressive that India has landed on the moon on their 2nd try. Nothing should take away from that, and India should be very proud of their achievement. But geez this is a braindead article. Yes, poorer countries can pay people less do the same amount of work as someone in another country.
I respectfully disagree with you. It's a bit misleading to compare average incomes like that. I would assume the income disparity is nowhere near as large for valuable scientists and engineers working for a national space program. In addition, you are only comparing labour costs. Some materials can be cheaper in India, but certainly not by a factor of 25 and certainly not all of them. Therefore, I wouldn't say the article is braindead.
It's almost as if doing this first, half a century ago, and, pardon my culturism, but probably less recklessly AND in a higher cost of living country would be substantially more expensive.
But still, a genuine congratulations to India and everybody that worked on that project.
Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted, it's a fact. "We did it for SO CHEAP" is not a brag or a flex.
The cost to realtime process trajectories in 1968 was not the $10USD that a several year old, e-waste used iPhone is now.
And the yearly salary of NASA engineers now is 100k-150k USD (glassdoor.com) while the Indian space program engineer median yearly salary (payscale.com) looks to be 200k-3M INR (median 800,000), which is $2,400USD-35K USD (median 10,000USD).
So... Just on labor alone, that's a factor of 5-50x. Then, take into account the improvements in materials and tech that can be basically gotten off the shelf. You don't have to R&D reinvent tang anymore.
Like, yeah, cool, you did it, that's awesome. But then, trying to be like "oh we did it for so cheap" just makes me wonder how and then instantly realize that making me think about that undermines the very achievement it's trying to brag about.
And don't get it twisted: money is fucked up in the world right now. Just leave it at: You did it, India. Congratulations, one of only four countries in the world have done it.
You're probably being downvoted because nobody is drawing any comparisons to the Apollo missions, except yourself. You're defending a point nobody else is making.
The only cost comparison to other space missions I've seen is a one liner from the article which compares it to a current day Falcon launch. Which is a reasonable comparison and data point.
They put a rover on the moon.
This is much more similar to the Mars rovers than to Apollo. Those were still much more expensive than this was. Although for understandable reasons like cost of living in US vs India and salary differences.
Manned missions are more expensive in part because humans and human life support is really heavy. The Saturn V is still the most powerful rocket ever launched. Those things were expensive.
