Comment

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

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

wahming@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
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.

source
Pipoca@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
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.

source