Hacker News Reader

Comment by totaldude87 | Hacker News Reader

Apart from using almost 95% of homegrown technologies, One high feat is that the entire mission cost around $141 million which is half the cost of Latest Avengers Movie..

View on HN

Not again with this. This is comparing peanuts to oranges. Two completely separate domains, with their own requirements and goals.

If you need to compare then compare it with costs of other missions. And even then it would be unfair, as almost no two space missions have the exact same requirements, goals and parameters.

I agree. But that said, it's good to give people estimate of what the costs for a moon mission are compared to other things we do on earth. In that sense, this comparison is useful, because "half the cost of avengers movie" is less abstract than "$ XYZ,000,000" for most people.

Do people really have a better grasp on how much a movie costs to be made ? I wouldn't know what the difference is between a 1 million, a 10 million and a 100 million movie, or to even give a single example for each of those categories

I’m pretty sure you do (and have).

According to one article, NASA spent five times that for similar kind of mission.. again not sure about authenticity :)

Please share the article then.

It's really not... it's comparing dollars to dollars. If anything, the only thing you should modify is maybe to consider how much the Avengers would have cost to produce in India. But in any case, it's certainly relevant to consider how much cash was invested and what was the return on that investment. Both ventures produce some common returns, such as cultural heritage, jobs/economic stimulus, pollution, etc. On the other hand, some of the returns are quite dissimilar; the space mission produces a considerable amount of scientific and technological benefits, while the movie put some cash back in investor's pockets.

> the space mission produces a considerable amount of scientific and technological benefits

Does it actually? This isn't 1960 anymore... we know how to launch a rocket and get it the moon now.

It seems this is mostly a national pride kind of thing which has some value too but it's a very different kind of value.

We actually aren’t that sure if we could do an Apollo again at all in modern times.

Please explain because unless the Laws of Physics changed in the last 50 years I don't see how that could possibly be true.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610720/why-getting-back-t...

https://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html

Lots of the know how, resources, and people are gone forever. Just because we have lots of computers now doesn’t solve all problems. Apollo was an incredible feat of humanity. There’s a reason no other country has ever sent humans to the moon, it’s really hard.

may be not this mission, but with ever increasing weather anomalies, the weather /GPS satellites are actually helpful even today

> Does it actually? This isn't 1960 anymore... we know how to launch a rocket and get it the moon now.

I expect you to behave in similar manner.

Don't learn anything, it isn't going to provide any technological benefits to your company, since other people already know it.

There were already many people who knows, how to do things. Does it mean, it isn't going to provide any value?

Well, if your thought is as narrow as such, then you shouldn't have learned any language and know how to speak. Because, it's something every human learns from one another.

It does provide scientific and technological benefits maybe not to you, but to India and it's neighboring countries.

Think about what you're saying here. Doesn't this fact just make the Avengers movie seem COMPLETELY ridiculous in terms of cost? I think it's a perfectly valid comparison.

You know when people spend 300 grand plus on a car, and people say, "Think what else could be done with that money". It's like that

If you spend $300 million but make 3x or 4x that on return is it ridiculous?

Anyways the reason these movies cost so much is because all the intermediary production and marketing pieces want a share of the pie.

Given how "Hollywood accounting" became a popular thing, I'm not even sure if the published cost of new movies is close to reality. And how much was the movie production vs paying the popular actors.

There are just too may weird data points for popular film costs. For example each of Friends got ~$1M per episode in the last season, so that's $108M ($146M with inflation adjustment) just for main cast in season 10, vs $220M for "the Avengers". So the mission cost less than main characters in later seasons is Friends.

It’s fair to compare the prices of anything. This mission cost way more than a bottle of water, and way less than the market cap of BP. Both entirely fair comparisons. Where it gets tricky is what conclusions you draw from those comparisons.

> Both entirely fair comparisons. Where it gets tricky is what conclusions you draw from those comparisons.

Brilliantly put, I need to commit that to memory.

It reminds of the saying: "All models are wrong, some models are useful".

I don't deserve to be in such esteemed company, but I'm glad you like it.

While that might be true, I still find it hard to source equipments and material from companies in India who often want "big orders" which an individual might not be able to afford.

I've been trying to source Silica Gel 1kg (orange colour changing beads in India) tried IndiaMart but either suppliers don't respond or respond with big order requirement or ask for too much information about your operation.

Back in time I was in US, and companies shipped small quantities or samples sometimes for free and same experience I had with Chinese sellers.

So lemme ask, why Indian manufacturers are so hard to deal with?

Different countries, different culture, different mindset.

Just don't work with them then. Put an angry review, and move on.

There are thousands of suppliers.

I tell the same to American companies wanting 10 page NDAs/contracts for commercial samples "We do not sign NDAs just to get samples" or "we do not spend time of engineers to fill survey forms" — and it works!

Very often after such a reply, we get a call from their managers in a week or so, pleading to not to drop a ball on them.

Half the cost of the most expensive movie ever made (or close to it) tells you nothing at all. If you compared it instead with the median of Hollywood production budgets that would be more interesting but you could not make a witty comment anymore.

According to http://parlaystudios.com/blog/feature-film-budget-breakdown/, "The Hollywood Reporter notes that the average cost of a feature film is even lower, spanning between $70 and $90 million.". So even the fact that it's only twice the cost of the average Hollywood movie is pretty impressive.

The average is the not the median.

In contrast, Rajini's film "2.0" cost $75 million.

And thats that

Thats gotta be in ₹

Hmmm...

This means that it is possible that Grand Theft Rover, the new Rockstar game (one can dream) will be more expensive to make than actually going to Mars and steal a Mars rover.

I suppose that if you want as much realism as possible, then simulation is more expensive than doing an actual real thing. I guess that makes sense. We didn't create an AI yet that creates games for us at GTA-scale and quality.

Well, of course. No AI would tolerate all the workplace abuse, rampant "bro culture" and endless hours of "mandatory voluntary" crunch time that happens in game development companies, including Rockstar Games Inc.

https://www.gameshedge.com/rockstar-games-employees-face-sex...

https://kotaku.com/inside-rockstar-games-culture-of-crunch-1...

And Avengers Endgame has brought in $1.5 billion in revenue. If India focused on commercial satellite launches it would generate much more revenue and employ far more engineers than moon or Mars missions.

To be fair, ISRO probably didn't have to pay $100M in star salaries

Everyone that is anyone knows that the movie industry is highly corrupt. That is why someone that is guaranteed a percentage of profits often gets nothing. The books are so cooked, that many famous movies are chalked up as a loss.

It took 11 and a half years from when this deal was signed to launch. How long did it take the Avengers movie to be made? For comparison, America decided to send humans to the moon in September 1962, and successfully did it in July 1969, after creating the technology and process to do this. Also using humans, not machines.

America's Surveyor program, which successfully soft landed 5 probes on the moon from 1966-1968, had a total cost of $469 million, again inventing the technology and processes to do this. That comes out to 93.8 million per successful launch or 67 million per launch.

What point are you making exactly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_program

If you made modern, even vaguely similar comparisons to how much landing a probe on the moon would cost the United States space program today and how long it would take to get it through the pipeline, the parent poster's point would stand even more clearly.

Maybe consider that you are speaking about 67 millon per launch in 1969 dollar, which, according to quick google search is equivalent of 470 million in today's USD.

If you consider PPP conversion ratio 1$ spent in in India is equivalent to about 17$ spent in the US. So 141M$ in India today is equivalent to 2.5B$ in the US. This also gives a better estimate of what else could be bought for the money on this kind of project

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/india/ppp-conversion-factor

I see your point, but this would make more sense for comparison of highway construction or other projects that require lot of people with average salary and common resources. High tech is, I believe, very competitive and you do not manh need 'common' people working on it. Also technologies used are not common and cannot easily take advantage of scale of indian economy.

The latest Avengers movie made box office record. I'm starting to think all these moon/mars missions by various countries a waste of money and resources. Why don't they cooperate and avoid making their own wheels?

   Why don't they cooperate and avoid making their own wheels?

Um, have you seen how group projects normally turn out?

The whole point of these missions is for countries to learn how to make the wheels (and demonstrate to all the other countries that they can).

Yes thank god for the Avengers movie, that will really help further society.

Why do people keep producing loads of different movies when they could collaborate and just make one massive movie and then we wouldn't have to bother any more?

I want to know how did they acquire this technology. I've heard china simply steals technology (or atleast accused of stealing by western media), but what about india, does India too steals technology or what exactly is their process to get the technology they need?

Are these scientists working for Isro previously worked for other organizations like NASA where they acquired know how from?

And if it's really homegrown technology, then why we haven't seen better phones or drones or 3d printer or whatever new, coming out of India?

Or does it mean, in India innovation which is not supported by government, doesn't take off?

Not sure why I am being downvoted , I asked this question in good faith.

Why are you assuming that Indian scientists and engineers cannot develop things themselves? That is bad faith.

Chinese scientists and engineers can also develop things themselves, then why are they accused of stealing technology often? If something is possible doesn't mean it's the best option they've on hand.

Intellectual property rights lasting more than a short time are theft from humanity. Their ostensible reason to exist is to contribute to our shared cultural inheritance, and yet.

Is there no other way to do things other than stealing? India's space program goes back to the late 60s. When faced with technology sanctions from the United States, they studied up the fundamentals, researched by trial and error and learnt from the mistakes and sucesses of other bigger space organizations. They know their limits, in terms of budget and governmental support. But they've persisted and continuously pushed their own limits, come up with the most efficient ways of achieving missions. Ex, Mangalyaan, Chandrayaan 1 and now the Chandrayaan 2. India has even launched a constellation of its own Positioning System of Satellites, the IRNSS, which is yet to be comissioned into public use.

In short, ISRO has simply learnt to be efficient and adaptive. Relied extensively on first principles and fundamentals. It is an really inspiring story of ingenuity and innovation. More "discovered and developed" than "acquired".

Are you even a scientist that you are talking about dynamics of exchange of technology? I mean are you qualified enough to talk like this? Just asking in good faith

No I am not qualified, neither I am scientist. And probably, that's why I am curious

To answer your question specifically, certain design elements were licensed from other countries, before being largely indigenized. For example, the Vikas engines were initially developed in the 70s, from Ariane's Vulcan engines. This family of engines powers the second stage of the current mission.

Cryogenic engines were initially bought from Russia, but economic sanctions in the late 90s-mid 2000s forced India to develop its own indigenous cryogenic engines. These were based on the Russian models the Indian engineers were already familiar with, though it delayed the development of India's space program by at least a decade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com