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

wabafee , 10 months ago

Aside from different approaches I think the biggest factor is salary difference. Still impressive though a good example for other Asian nations.

Amaltheamannen , 10 months ago

Modern US space projects are also basically welfare programs for aerospace companies.

CaptainPedantic , 10 months 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 , 10 months 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.

SGG , 10 months ago

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!