Why India's Mars Probe Was So Cheap 200
schwit1 (797399) writes "Alan Boyle has some interesting thoughts on why it cost India so little, less than the budget of the movie Gravity, to build and send its probe Mangalyaan to Mars: 'The $74 million Mars Orbiter Mission, also known by the acronym MOM or the Hindi word Mangalyaan ("Mars-Craft"), didn't just cost less than the $100 million Hollywood blockbuster starring Sandra Bullock. The price tag is a mere one-ninth of the cost of NASA's $671 million Maven mission, which also put its spacecraft into Mars orbit this week. The differential definitely hints at a new paradigm for space exploration — one that's taking hold not only in Bangalore, but around the world. At the same time, it hints at the dramatically different objectives for MOM and Maven, and the dramatically different environments in which those missions took shape.' Read it all. It gives us a hint at the future of space exploration.
They outsourced their engineering to India (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly, is there no lever the Indian government won't sink to to save money?
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, is there no lever the Indian government won't sink to to save money?
Yea, but what until something goes wrong and Bob on tech support line tells them they need to reinstall Windows. Or MS tech support calls them and tells them "I have been monitoring your computer and you have a reall bad virus that will steal your information. "
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. Govt projects still need "advertising" at least inside the govt to convince people it's worth spending money on this mission. Probably much lower than for films, but can't be sure.
Tricky to count costs in government projects (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not easy to compare costs for projects done by different governments. There are different accounting standards for what is "in" and "out" of the project costs. I know nothing about the rules in India, but in Europe, scientific / engineering labor is not included in the "project". I expect the Indian probe was less expensive than a comparable NASA probe, but maybe not by nearly as large a margin as it seems.
This doesn't detract from the mission being a great success for India.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not easy to compare costs for projects done by different governments. There are different accounting standards for what is "in" and "out" of the project costs. I know nothing about the rules in India, but in Europe, scientific / engineering labor is not included in the "project". I expect the Indian probe was less expensive than a comparable NASA probe, but maybe not by nearly as large a margin as it seems.
This doesn't detract from the mission being a great success for India.
There's also the quality and precision of the scientific equipment on board. I will have to go look but the missions of these probes are most likely very different and the equipment used could vary greatly based on what fidelity of data they hope to receive. Basically, there are A LOT of factors that could account for the difference in cost. Hell, if Maven has a nuclear power source, that alone could be tens if not hundreds of millions in cost.
Re:Tricky to count costs in government projects (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to compare apples to light bulbs (Score:5, Insightful)
The article spells out the differences - the India probe took longer, weighed less, has fewer experiments, and probably won't last long. Meanwhile the NASA probe got there quickly, weighs 4 times more, has twice the number of experiments, and can serve as a communication relay for probes on the ground.
I can drive across country in a $5000 car, a $50,000 car, or a $500,000 truck. Each of them have different purposes and will get you there in different ways. To say NASA needs to only use the $5000 car isn't in our long term interest.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a valid point. However, we have to see whether NASA can manage to send the "$5000 car" at the same cost or lower than ISRO. Odds are that the "$500,000 Truck" is going to be way out of reach for ISRO in the next 5 years or so. However, the future might hold more opportunities. Just like SpaceX, there might be entrepreneurial opportunities in India now to provide competition to Antrix (the commercial wing of ISRO) at a purely privatized or a private/public undertaking capacity.
Prices being driven dow
Re: (Score:2)
That is a valid point. However, we have to see whether NASA can manage to send the "$5000 car" at the same cost or lower than ISRO.
What is your logic behind that demand? What if NASA and other space agencies don't see the comparative value in sending the "$5000 car"?
Re:Way to compare apples to light bulbs (Score:4, Insightful)
That is a valid point. However, we have to see whether NASA can manage to send the "$5000 car" at the same cost or lower than ISRO.
What is your logic behind that demand? What if NASA and other space agencies don't see the comparative value in sending the "$5000 car"?
Or how about, the information sent back from a $5000 probe wouldn't give us much insight. We've already sent the cheaper probes. [nasa.gov] India hasn't. People are projecting the U.S. status on other countries that are just now getting objects in orbit and to other planetary bodies like we're all in the same boat. It's like complaining about the cost of a microwave oven when the other guy only has flint and steel.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and once you've designed one microwave, building the next one is very cheap since all the research and design has already been done.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a quick follow up:
The total cost of the Mariner 4 mission is estimated at $83.2 million. Total research, development, launch, and support costs for the Mariner series of spacecraft (Mariners 1 through 10) was approximately $554 million.
From http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc... [nasa.gov]
If you divide the cost up between the missions it averages under $60 million per probe. Cheaper than the Indian probe! That's a much more realistic comparison of scientific programs. Folks, the U.S. did the sub $100 million probes to Mars in the 1970s. India didn't even have a rocket to reach Low Earth Orbit during that decade and only got there in the last fifteen years! Baby steps, and they've got a lot of catching up to do and have the benefi
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that the cheapo method may actually deliver less bang for the buck than a proper space probe that costs more.
The cheapest choice is always the least expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
i see what you're saying but I don't think the cost savings on this mission came from the launch itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I compared a car and a truck is because they're built for different purposes. You wouldn't use a $5000 car to safely move all of your possessions across the country - most people would get an 18-wheeler to pack up their stuff and move it. That doesn't mean you can't drive across country in it, it's just not designed or built to haul your stuff. I wouldn't use an 18-wheeler to go get groceries - it's overkill for what you need.
Re:Way to compare apples to light bulbs (Score:5, Funny)
To say NASA needs to only use the $5000 car isn't in our long term interest.
I couldn't agree more. Using a $5000 car would make NASA nearly irrelevant as a space agency.
Re: (Score:2)
The article says it all:
The MOM orbiter's 33-pound (15-kilogram) scientific payload comprises five instruments that will monitor Mars' atmosphere and weather, take color pictures of the surface and map the planet's mineralogy over the course of six months. In contrast, Maven's 143-pound (65-kilogram) payload includes nine instruments to study Mars' upper atmosphere as part of a yearlong mission and a decades-long scientific campaign. It can also serve as a relay for communications with NASA probes on the Martian surface.
So MOM was cheaper because it wasn't designed to do the same thing as Maven.
Re:Way to compare apples to light bulbs (Score:5, Insightful)
Another HUGE thing to consider that "Government Waste" is not always government waste.
If it costs $120,000 to keep a top level engineer employed at NASA and they compete with a $20,000 engineer in India -- that isn't $100,000 of waste. That's +$100,000 to our GDP, and someone sending their kids to college.
The true meaning of Waste is a cut to taxes on financial instruments that end up becoming offshore investments. Extra "profits" are things you need to worry about in a free market economy -- not people pulling in a paycheck.
I want to live next to that Engineer at NASA, I want my kids to go to boyscouts with his kids, and I don't want everyone to have families arguing over bills -- THAT is the hidden cost to bean counters trying to micromanage society.
Re: (Score:2)
You can ride in the "dog seat" for cheap! (Score:2)
Check out the cheap ride in the "dog seat" [google.com]. Good spots reserved for family members.
Re: (Score:2)
The article spells out the differences - the India probe took longer, weighed less, has fewer experiments, and probably won't last long
If it makes it significantly cheaper, I'm not convinced any of that are bad things. With the time and resources NASA would take to make one Mars mission, India can make *several*, each building on the results of the last. Its sort of the Worse is Better [jwz.org] approach applied to space missions. Or for you whippersnappers, consider it an iterative (aka: "Agile") approach to space missions, as opposed to NASA stuck using Waterfall [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a valid point if the two orbiters were exactly the same. They're not. India is much closer to the equator than Florida, so launch costs are significantly reduced. Labor costs are reduced. Material may not need to be shipped as far and thus cost less. Maybe NASA and its suppliers have contracts for materials that are more expensive at a point in time, but avoid fluctuations over a long period of time.
I'd add that this isn't the first mission to Mars that NASA has made. They've been doing
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just give credit where it's due and learn from their success. We can't put our noses up and say our space program is a 2015 Cadillac Escalade whereas yours is a 1999 Honda Accord.
Actually, that's exactly what we're talking about. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe India "played it safe". The relative success of Mars missions is quite low - there have been many, many, many more attempts at Mars than missions that actually g
Re: (Score:2)
It is not true that "there have been many, many, many more attempts at Mars than missions that actually got there", see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Mars exploration splits into two eras, the cold war competition between the U.S. and Soviets - which the U.S. won hands-down, Yay Mariner! Yay Viking! - and the past couple of decades with the U.S. and other countries collaborating in various combinations.
During the cold war the U.S. had a track record of 8 successful missions versus 2 launch failures. Du
Re: (Score:2)
If the orbiters were made to do the same things and one was cheaper, I'd agree with you. My point is they're not built to the same specifications or for the same purposes, so comparing on cost alone is just a waste. And I'm not disparaging what India did. I hope they and NASA are able to learn from what each did and make it even more cost effective.
Re: (Score:2)
So... what you are saying, if I'm getting you right, is that Indian mission sent a Tata Nano to Mars, whereas NASA sent a Chevy Suburban...?
More like India sent a digital camera from 1993 and we sent one made today. It's the level of sophistication of the probe, what it was designed to do, etc. India is NOT at the same place that the U.S. as far as space travel and rocket capability, folks. Stop projecting! It's great that they got there, and yes, they did build ehitr probe using information from what came before in the U.S. (hindsight and all), but they are still in the early stages of their space program and this (comparatively) small victory
They didn't factor in the cost of R&D (Score:2)
It was so cheap because India relied on the R&D done by developed nations. And then it forgot to include the cost of its own R&D for the program. It just included the cost of the mission in an as is where is condition. Vallah!! we have a cheap Mars mission. How else can they score some brownie points? They are certainly not the first to go around Mars. But hey, if they say they are the first at being the cheapest to go to Mars, well that's a first in some way!! And they scored some brownie points.
Re: (Score:2)
It's 1/6 the cost, and does far less work.
This article is another stupid attempt to make the US government look inefficient, when in fact it makes it look better when you look at the actual projects and missions.
Re: (Score:2)
It was so cheap because India relied on the R&D done by developed nations
Partly, but the key technologies were not shared [forbesindia.com] as the USA blocked this, so India developed a lot itself.
Difficult to compare (Score:2)
If you just want to put something around another planet it doesn't cost that much. If you are designing and building equipment that has never flown in space before it costs quite a bit more. And the whole scientific reason for going in the first place is to collect data. And it's not just the number of instruments or what they are measuring but how good are they? Just like benchtop equipment as you want more precision in your equipment prices escalate rapidly.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:to sum it up: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Mangalyaan's six month mission is about collecting data that will be studied, reviewed, and scrutinized for far longer than the age of a "Gravity" blu-ray. It will continue to pay dividends long after its orbit has decayed. its actions pave the way for discoveries into planetary physics and science, not coffee mugs and concession sales. Mangalyaan's science may one day help solve some of the most complex questions in astrophysics, or it may help start colonies on other planets. Mangalyaan's goal is science, knowledge, and progress toward a bright future.
I think you are getting a little over-excited about the importance of Mangalyaan to "planetary physics and science". As the article correctly states, it's essentially a demonstration that "we can do it too" (from the Indian point of view). Its scientific value is fairly small given the number of Mars missions other countries have launched or will launch in the near future. It does help build local expertise in space engineering in India which one day may or may not make a significant contribution to mankind
The commoditisation of space exploration? (Score:2)
I see this story as a symptom of a seemingly natural progression in scientific and technical endeavours. The cost of advanced technology in general is being driven down by market forces, so the barrier to entry is lower than it used to be even for space shots. And people are starting to sense economic opportunities in space. So the cost is coming down as the capabilities and sophistication are going up - that's the story of the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath.
It may not be long before there will be
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
NASA in Vegas (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA tried the "faster, better, cheaper" (FBC) approach in the 90's with roughly a 50% success rate. UK also tried a "cheap" Mars lander, the Beagle, that was a bust.
If India can demonstrate they can KEEP going cheap and be successful, then we can conclude they are on to something. NASA's FBC also looked good at the start.
It's too early to tell for India. And even if they could get up to a 70% success rate, the 30% failure rate could be seen as a national embarrassment by some standards. Although, maybe a 3rd-world country may be more tolerable of such, being seen as underdog newbies.
It's also hard to plan science and control staffing if 30% of your probes are duds; and by sheer probability, 2 or 3 could fail in a row even at a 70% average, leaving a decade of gaps.
Re: (Score:2)
For the shuttle program, 2% failure rate was a major embarrassment and resulted on major, worldwide news stories and grounding of the fleet for years at a time.
When that's framing your risk tolerance, there's going to be a lot more care (and money) involved.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with the shuttle failures is:
Both where avoidable
Both costed plenty of lifes
The fact that the Challanger crew died is in one regard only due to the fact that the rescue system got 'scratched' for cost reasons. The crew survived until the cockpit of the shuttle crashed into the sea. The whole crash itself, caused by the 'malfunctioning' solid fuel booster rockets was completely avoidable.
Columbia only needed to change the reentrance vector to imcrease its chance of survival by 1000% but 'mission
"Offshore" Engineering Expertise (Score:3)
I would have guessed that $75K figure would be higher.
At many (not software or computer hardware) engineering discussion boards you'll see technical questions coming in that seem to have easy or obvious answers. They are often from overseas engineers or tech people who are unfamiliar with rules of thumb or common methods/processes or have trouble with terminology/English language. It's not because of a lack of competence.
Re: (Score:2)
"rules of thumb" and "common methods/processes" are very much included in "competence"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
75 grand is just the salary; not the accounting cost of employing one engineer. The latter is probably at least twice that figure. There are a lot of costs not paid to the employee directly: overhead/administration, employer matching 401k funding (used to be direct pension funding, but that's pretty much dead these days), employer share of "payroll" tax (Social Security), unemployment insurance, usually-to-almost-always health insurance, etc.
Also, the 75
they ruined the ending (Score:2)
US Government (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps we spend a lot per probe relatively speaking, but NASA has had a great track record since giving up the "cheapo" approach of the 90's. The NASA/JPL Mars rovers and orbiters have done wonderful science.
In fact, the USA is the only country to land a working probe(s) on Mars. Both UK and USSR have attempted. (The Soviets came close, but it's debatable whether a certain attempt actually sent usable measurements back.)
Even if you deem it expensive, at least we got our money's worth, unlike some expensive
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever the cost, it just got over a billion people excited about space again.
Re: (Score:2)
For what, all of thirty seconds? A minute? People get excited about space all the time, it doesn't last. (And no, this isn't a new thing. It runs at least as far back as the sixties.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever the cost, it just got over a billion people excited about space again.
I used to live about 15 miles from where the Space Shuttle lifted off in Florida, back when that program was active. Every shuttle launch I could, I'd go down to the beach to watch. (Greatest free show on earth, btw.)
What I noticed was that probably the majority of the folks down there watching with me every time were not my fellow Floridians, or even Americans. It was people from all over the earth. Asians, Middle Easterners, Africans, South Americans, Europeans. Everyone was there watching.
So I think it
Why the cost? (Score:2)
movies vs space (Score:4, Funny)
It's disturbing all these comparisons between the budget of Hollywood movies and a space program. It's ridiculous... the space program may aim to eventually travel to the stars, but Hollywood movies are MADE FROM stars. Imagine if space programs had to build orbiters and probes out of actual stars... now you get the picture. The precious resource that Hollywood movies are made from far outshines any glorified firework.
To look at it yet another way, Gravity took US ALL into space, in a way that probably felt more real to us than if we had actually gone into boring old space. Whereas the Indian mars orbiter didn't take anyone, not even Matt Daemon. It might send back a few snapshots and data hardly anyone will be interested in. We won't even get a T-Shirt out of it. There is no comparison.
nasa needs an odesk account (Score:2)
Maybe they can outsource their work to India's space agency for $10/hour.
Simple Facts (Score:2)
I'm considering a Kick Starter project of sending a vehicle to the Moon to harvest He3. I will use technologies from anyone I chose. I will then sell my bounty to highest bidder. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
What could possibly go wrong?
For starters: there is no noticeable demand for He3 on earth right now.
Re:Risk management? (Score:5, Insightful)
Faster, Cheaper, Better.
Pick any two....
Re: (Score:3)
Faster, Cheaper, Better.
Pick any two....
You meant India started the Mars probe program all the way back when they just got independence from the UK?
Re: (Score:3)
Faster, Cheaper, Better, Contractors
Pick any two....
(Contractors count as 2)
Re: (Score:3)
> Faster, Cheaper, Better.
> Pick any two....
F35.
Your argument is invalid.
Re: (Score:3)
> Faster, Cheaper, Better.
> Pick any two....
F35.
Your argument is invalid.
Cheaper than an F22, faster than a Cessna.
Re: (Score:3)
At this rate, it won't be cheaper than the F22.
Re: (Score:2)
Learjet.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe "pick up to two" is more fitting.
Re: (Score:2)
F35 had other options that got picked: fancy unused bells and whistles, and pork
if so, U.S. is stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
If the US spent six times as much in order to reduce the risk of failure, that would be STUPID.
It would make much more sense to send two cheap probes and have one fail. That would be one third the cost.
Re:if so, U.S. is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
It would make much more sense to send two cheap probes and have one fail. That would be one third the cost.
It would cost less than that, since much of the cost is NRE. But if the chance of failure is, say, 10%, that does NOT mean that the chance of both failing is only 1%. Failures are not random independent events. Failures are often the result of design or programming flaws, so whatever made the first probe fail might also make the second fail if they share design features or code.
If you clone it, +10% cost, +x% reliability (Score:2)
> so whatever made the first probe fail might also make the second fail if they share design features or code.
Yes, if you make two copies of the same probe, two copies of the same failure is likely. However, that would only cost maybe 10%-20% more than making one copy.
I'm talking about do what India did - design and build a system, more or less from the ground up - twice.
Have two companies do it independently, each at 1/6th the cost of the "reliable" version. The two different probes are unlikely to f
Re: (Score:2)
Have two companies do it independently, each at 1/6th the cost of the "reliable" version. The two different probes are unlikely to fail in the same way.
Even if they did both fail, you could fix the problem and build two more, while spending less than the 6X reliable approach.
There is certainly more to it than that though. If a device consists of 50 different critical components such that a failure in any one ends the mission, then it is hardly a benefit if one probe has module 2 fail and another probe has module 7 fail - the result is the same.
You still need to design for a reasonably decent failure rate.
That said, it may very well make sense to accept a 10% increase in overall failure rate if it results in a 90% reduction in cost, since if you send a few probes you'd expect o
Re: (Score:2)
it may very well make sense to accept a 10% increase in overall failure rate if it results in a 90% reduction in cost
That is not realistic. The general rule in aviation is that manned aircraft need "seven nines" of reliability against catastrophic failure, or 99.99999%. That is one failure in ten million flights. Adding a nine results in roughly a doubling of cost. For unmanned aircraft, like drones, the standard is "four nines" or 99.99%. That is one catastrophic failure in every ten thousand flights. Since there are three fewer nines, an unmanned aircraft can be designed and built for an eighth the cost of a manne
Re: (Score:3)
The US spends six times as much in order to keep the NASA boondoggle afloat. I'm for space exploration as much as the next guy, but lets not pretend that the modern US space program is kept around for any reason other than it's a massive jobs program for the defense/aerospace industries.
That they do some good science despite the cynical, money grubbing bullshit is a miracle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm gonna go with (Score:4, Informative)
hahahhahahaha.. Oh man. You are hilarious.
Anyone who thinks American bureaucracy is over bearing and paralyzing clearly hasn't dealt with other government.
My experience with the India's bureaucracy was that it is the worst. Sudden fees(Bribes*) , being shuffled to other family members fr more sudden fees*. It's realy bad.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-... [bbc.com]
http://www.bbc.com/news/102276... [bbc.com]
I have good news for you** the American Bureaucracy is pretty damn efficient and honest.
*really bribes as in, it's going into this guys pocket.
**sadly, like most Americans these, you won't like facts and just ignore this good news it it's counter to you belief.
Re:I'm gonna go with (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm gonna go with (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what connotation you are implying, but this is a good thing.
That the general public and general worker is not accustomed to bribery is a good thing.
Yes, it would be better if the upper crust didn't bribe as well. But understand that bribery for the average person is horrible.
Being pulled over by police looking for a bribe. ...
Getting your passport takes a bribe.
Teachers take bribes for grades.
Those are issues that would affect and ruin most interactions of most regular people. Thank god, us regular people are 'not allowed' to bribe. Most of us who grew up in countries like that know what kind of environment it is.
Let's face it if it is a choice between BIGCORPA and BIGCORPB getting a big government contract and there is bribery involved, it doesn't affect the average person on a day to day level. Yes, it is wrong. Yes, it should be fixed. But you cannot compare this high level corruption to the day to day corruption that infects your daily life.
Re: (Score:3)
When big pharma patents a drug and makes it so expensive people die, or they push a drug that is useless and even dangerous.
When Monsanto controls a significant portion of how food is produced.
When you cannot look to a local provider for nearly anything (internet, clothes, etc), because either they cannot compete or their prices are too high for everyman.
When laws are passed that curtail your freedoms in exchan
Re: (Score:2)
When big pharma patents a drug and makes it so expensive people die, or they push a drug that is useless and even dangerous.
Would fewer people die if they didn't make it at all? I'm not aware of any useless prescription drugs that are on the market that have been recently approved, either, but I'd be happy if you have a citation. There have been drugs that were demonstrated to be useful that were later demonstrated to not be useful.
I will agree that bribery of a sort is part of why we don't have the NIH doing royalty-free drug development. There is no reason that drugs can only be researched privately. However, simply gettin
Re: (Score:2)
However I think that when on the world-stage, they are able to work with each other in ways that seem to be impossible for Americans. In fact, if you are a American, and travel to Ind
Re: (Score:2)
I see the petty bribery overseas and raise you a FEMA horse judge.
American Bureaucracy is a global laughing stock and a classic example of why nepotism produces failure. See also the NSA's sprawling outsourcing that had the world going "Booz what? They really outsourced military intelligence?" after Snowden. Of course there are many places far worse and of course it wasn't such a joke a few years ago, but pretending i
Re: (Score:3)
As a general rule I agree that the US Bureaucracy is surprisingly honest. In my experience most corruption in US projects doesn’t come from the bureaucracy but from congress. US government procurement rules are designed to pay off the various political power blocks associated with darned near every person in congress. The rank and file government employees know it is corrupt but they have to follow the law as written. For some items these rules very likely double the cost.
Re:I'm gonna go with (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, India's government totally has a large (and corrupt) bureaucracy: As usual, basic information courtesy of Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Say what you want about the US(and there's plenty to say), you won't be paying "facilitation fees" to report a crime in the US, and none of our national elected officials are currently under any serious suspicion of murder.
Now, I'm not sure what exactly this means about the interaction between space research and cost, but the "lack of bureaucracy" is a bit out of touch with the reality in India.
I'd lean towards:
A. Everything being more expensive in the US. That's the first world for you. Everyone involved here wants a decent standard of living.
B. We have a hugely entrenched corporate aerospace industry, that has their hooks in every space project.
Could be something else too, the world's complicated, but "bureaucracy" is a bumper-sticker explanation that doesn't accurately describe differences between the US and India.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, the US police only investigates crimes if reported by wealthy people!? I don't know what kind of parallel universe you live in.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that US police are far from perfect. They don't always do everything they need to, a small some are actively corrupt, and there's definitely bias in enforcement.
But at the same time, it's not nearly as bad here as it is in some other places.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, your local police felt like your case was somehow tied into a potential revenue stream for the department.
My car was stolen a few years ago and I called in to report the crime. When I asked when they were going to stop by to investigate they responded with "why should we go there, your car isn't there anymore."
Re: (Score:2)
Ever thought of asking the neighbors if they had information? How about asking the apartment management if they had any video?
You know, there are lots of other kinds of evidence other than DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Because police departments are heavily reliant on revenue from seized assets and moving violations. The last thing the police want to get involved with is a violent crime.
Re:I'm gonna go with (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you want about the US(and there's plenty to say)
And you call this covering up US corruption? Look, bro, I know you need the US government to be evil and the worst thing ever, for whatever political beliefs you've got there, but frankly, most of the world is doing worse. We have a lot of really reliable and good institutions to help deal with corruption. We have plenty of problems too, but we're simply not under the evil tyranny your overextended teenage rebellion needs.
The fact that a lot of what you're saying here is also objectively wrong(Seriously Clinton "killing" stevens?) is kinda secondary to the fact that you're brewing up an image that's unhealthily paranoid in general.
Re: (Score:2)
(Seriously Clinton "killing" stevens?)
That's weird, it's the second time I've seen that referenced in the past month.
Re: (Score:2)
you are ignorant, go read the list of capabilities of craft the US sent to Mars 40 years ago, let alone recent missions. The Indian's thing is a bowling ball by comparison
Re: (Score:2)
India? You kidding?
If you mean that their bureaucracy doesn't weigh them down with issues of equality (be it race, sex or any other bullshit) or environment, then I can see your point. But India not suffering from insufferable bureaucracy...
Re: Different objectives (Score:3)
Nope no graft in India no sir
Re: No US Contractors (Score:5, Funny)
India is well known for its lack of corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it was so cheap because it doesn't seem to do much
Although I do not share your view on this mission and on why its payload is limited, I believe you correctly identified the trick to limit costs: Keep and simple.
Management costs are not linear with mission complexity. As the payload and complexity increase, so does the risk of something going wrong, leading to increased costs in planing and designing the whole thing. Because the costs are higher, the pressure for success increases and the need to cross-check every detail arises, implicating even more costs
yeah! ceo pay is it! (Score:2)
> Inflated CEO's salaries are parasitic on US company earnings.
Yeah, let's look at that! In just the last three months, Apple CEO Tim Cook was paid $10 million dollars. Over those three months, Apple customers bought just over $40 billion of Apple products. So one of every 4,000 dollars you spend on Apple products goes to the CEO. If the CEO wasn't paid at all, an iPad would be ten cents cheaper! Enslave CEOs, so we can save a dime!
Re: (Score:2)
EVEN enslaving them would save 10 cents (Score:3)
The point is, even if they made NO money, you'd save an entire ten cents on that new iPad. Cut their pay in half, you'll save a nickel on your iPad.
Therefore, the idea that the cost of US goods is drastically affected by CEO salary, or that "Inflated CEO's salaries are parasitic on US company earnings" is ridiculous beyond measure. You're talking about 1% of 1% of the sales price and revenue. It's like saying products are inexpensive because of the cost of printing UPC codes.
> more in a year than the r
Re: (Score:2)
Stop trying to make sense on the Internet!
Re: (Score:2)
M.A.R.R.S. need women. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)