India just landed on the Moon for less than it cost to make Interstellar | The Independent::undefined
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.
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.
Aside from different approaches I think the biggest factor is salary difference. Still impressive though a good example for other Asian nations.
Yeah but interstellar went to a black hole and back
