India just landed on the Moon for less than it cost to make Interstellar
www.independent.co.uk
Some houses cost less than Indian space agency spent on getting to the Moon

India just landed on the Moon for less than it cost to make Interstellar | The Independent::undefined

  • CaptainPedantic@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11523·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • dejf@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6315·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • Pregnenolone@lemmy.worldEnglish
      91·
      1 year ago

      This comparison is predicated on every part of the manufacturing process occurring in each country. As soon as India are buying parts from other countries they’re not paying India prices anymore

    • MyDogLovesMeEnglish
      41·
      1 year ago

      Some guy at NASA: “We estimate that the cost of this part should cost 1.8Million dollars. “

      Some guy in India: “You know, my cousin can make that part for 35 dollars”