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

  • dejf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • AureumTempus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The difference in income is by about 9-10 time. Salary for a NASA scientist can go in the range of ₹1 to 2 crores (converted from dollar to rupees). For a ISRO scientist however, they may earn in ₹10-15 lakhs.

      I’ve made a comment explaining why the mission was so cost-effective, you can read it here. But yes, salary is not even one of the main reasons.

      For people who are not able to understand lakhs and crores, it’s a part of the numbering system used in India. For the international numbering system equivalent, you can read this comment.