@ Prameet Lahiri, lived in India 的回答
I’ll clarify first that I am an Indian and before we start singing our praises on how cost efficient our ISRO engineers are and how we are one of the best in the world; I’ll give you some vital statistics.
- First Mars Orbiter was attempted by the Russians in October, 1960. But they faced repeated failures and could not send their probes till 1971. In 1971, they launched Mars 2 and Mars 3. However, these were the first probes which successfully reached the Martian surface (Mars 3 managed to successfully make a soft landing) although they stopped transmitting data shortly after landing. After that there were numerous successful missions by them.
- 1960年10月，俄罗斯人尝试了“第一枚火星轨道器”。但是，他们屡屡失败，直到1971年才能进行探测。1971年，他们发射了“火星2号”和“火星3号”。 表面（火星3设法成功进行了软着陆），尽管他们在着陆后不久就停止了传输数据。 此后，他们完成了许多成功的任务。
- USA started its Mariner program in the 1960’s. Mariner 2 reached the Venus orbit in 1962. Mariners 3 & 4 targeted Mars and Mariner 4 successfully orbited the Martian orbit and it’s sensors gave us an initial idea about the atmosphere of Mars. Many more Mariner probes were sent by NASA and later on, in the 1970’s USA started its Viking program which successfully landed in the Mars surface. Since then they have sent many rovers and other successful missions to Mars.
- 美国在1960年代开始水手计划。 水手2号于1962年到达金星轨道。水手3号和4号对准火星，水手4号成功绕过火星轨道，其传感器使我们对火星大气有了初步了解。 NASA派出了更多的水手号探测器，后来在1970年代美国开始了其“维京”计划，该计划成功登陆火星表面。 从那以后，他们向火星发送了许多漫游车和其他成功任务。
My point in writing all of this is that whatever India has achieved has already been done by the US and the Soviets more than 50 years ago. We already had the knowledge of their failures and their successes. They sent the satellites in the sixties when we had processors with very less computing power. Even an iphone is twice more powerful than the biggest supercomputers that existed then. They did not have predictive models with which they could gauge the problems their satellites would have faced in deep space. This means that our R&D costs were not as high as theirs. Obviously sending a satellite to other planets was a far more uphill task in the sixties compared to now.
我写所有这些的观点是，印度取得的成就已超过50年前的美国和苏联。 我们有了他们的失败和成功的经验。 他们在六十年代发射了卫星，那时我们拥有的处理器的计算能力非常低。 如今的一部iPhone也要比其功能也比当时最大的超级计算机强大很多倍。他们没有可以用来估计卫星在深空所面临的问题的预测模型。 这意味着我们的研发成本没有他们的高。 与现在相比，在六十年代，向其他行星发送卫星显然是一项艰巨的任务。
Some of you may point out the low cost of India’s Mars Mission when compare to NASA’s projects (ex- MAVEN). This can be easily explained –
- Indian cost of labour is very less compared to USA. (This is the least important point, although I’ve mentioned it first)
- 与美国相比，印度的劳动力成本要低得多。 （这是最不重要的一点，尽管我首先提到了这一点）
- We used a smaller rocket so as to save costs. Because of this, we could only send a payload which was lesser than 15 kilograms (more on this in the next point).
- 我们使用了较小的火箭以节省成本。 因此，我们只能发送小于15公斤的有效载荷（在下一点对此进行更多介绍）。
- This tiny payload effectively meant that we could not send any complex instruments on board. Even ISRO readily accepts that its primary mission was only to get a probe to orbit Mars and not creating any breakthrough in scientific knowledge of Mars.
- 这种微小的有效载荷实际上意味着我们无法在船上发送任何复杂的仪器。 甚至ISRO都欣然接受其首要任务只是对火星轨道进行探测，而不是在火星科学知识上取得任何突破。
- Our primary payload is a minuscule methane sensor. Considering that we have chosen an orbit with an apogee of 80,ooo km and perigee of 430 km, the closest we get to the Martian surface is 430 km. Our tiny methane sensor won’t detect any worthwhile information at all. Curiosity, which was a NASA rover, could not detect any Methane even though it was actually at the Martian surface. At a distance of 430 km, our MOM obviously won’t detect any significant data (read edit 5). Infact, none of the on-board instruments which include a photometer, spectrometer and a camera will achieve anything. The data generated by these instruments have already been analysed tons of times decades ago.
- 我们的主要有效载荷是微量甲烷传感器。 考虑到我们选择的远地点为80000公里，近地点为430公里，也就是说我们离火星表面最近的轨道为430公里。 我们微小的甲烷传感器根本不会检测到任何有价值的信息。 好奇号是NASA的火星探测车，即使实际上是在火星表面，也无法检测到任何甲烷。 在430 km处，我们的MOM显然不会检测到任何重要数据（请阅读更新5）。 实际上，包括光度计，光谱仪和照相机在内的任何车载仪器都无法实现任何目的。 这些仪器产生的数据已经在数十年前进行了数次分析。
- So effectively this mission will just succeed in taking some photographs to mollify our gullible citizens into believing that we have succeeded in creating history. Albeit, these photographs will come at the cost of 450 crores.
- 在这项任务中有效完成的，就是成功拍摄了一些照片，以抚慰我们易受骗的公民，使他们相信我们已经成功地创造了历史。 尽管这些照片将花费45亿卢比。
- Effectively, comparing MOM to MAVEN is like comparing a Hyundai to a Lamborghini. An answer with more than a hundred votes said that we can build 9 MOMs with the same cost as a MAVEN. This clearly shows that we are so deluded and filled with false pride that we are willing to ignore the ground realities.
- 实际上，将MOM与MAVEN进行比较就像将现代与兰博基尼进行比较。 超过一百票的答案说，我们可以用与MAVEN相同的成本建造9个MOM。 这清楚地表明，我们是如此虚伪，充满了虚假的骄傲，以至于我们愿意忽视地面现实。
All I am saying that our Mars mission is just a way to demonstrate to the world that “Yes, we can do it too, though fifty years after NASA did it”.
I believe that instead of focussing on Mars missions and space exploration, we should limit our space program to more utilitarian objectives like
- Further developing our successful GSLV and PSLV programs and making them more cost effective.
- Sending more communication satellites and spy satellites.
- Trying to build our own versions of the GPS or Glonass,
- Send more weather forecasting satellites which could help us in early forecast of cyclones and floods.
These will be far more useful to the average Indian than any Mars mission. Deep space exploration can be done only once the basic needs of the people are fulfilled. USA would not have spent billions of dollars in its space programme if its citizens were still starving to death. The day Indians escape from the clutches of poverty and at least our women do not have to defecate openly will be the day I support deep space exploration by Indians.
这些对普通印度人来说比火星任务有用得多。 只有满足人们的基本需求，才能进行深空探测。 如果美国公民面临饥饿威胁的话，美国就不会在太空计划上花费数十亿美元。 印第安人摆脱贫困的那一天，至少我们的妇女不必公开排便的那一天，这将是我支持印度进行深空探索的那一天。
Okay, now bring up the abuses !! 🙂
- I do not want India to scrap its space programme. Nor do I think that the money would have been best utilised in poverty alleviation programmes. All I want is that the 450 crores which were spent on the Mars program should have been used to develop even more cost effective rockets like PSLV and also fix our glitches in GSLV. Maybe we could even have used it to fund our own fifth generation fighter jets which we are now purchasing at a cost of 126 billion USD from Dassault.
- 我不希望印度放弃其太空计划。 我也不认为这笔钱最好用于减轻贫困方案。 我想要的是在火星计划上花费的450千万本应用于开发更具成本效益的火箭，例如PSLV，并解决我们在GSLV方面的故障。 也许我们甚至可以用它来资助我们自己的第五代战斗机，现在我们以1260亿美元的价格从 Dassault 公司购买。
- BTW, we already know that there are trace amounts of Methane in the atmosphere of Mars. We don’t need MOM for that, in my opinion. Detection of methane in Martian atmosphere is what triggered the huge debate on whether Mars once supported life. That methane may have been generated by some geothermal activity, not necessarily life. What’s of real interest is whether there is methane in the martian surface (this will be far more conclusive proof), something which Curiosity could not detect and this is beyond the scope of MOM.
- 顺便说一句，我们已经知道在火星大气中存在微量的甲烷。 我认为我们不需要MOM。 火星大气层中甲烷的发现引发了关于火星是否曾经维持生命的巨大争论。 甲烷可能是由某些地热活动产生的，不一定是生命产生的。 真正感兴趣的是火星表面是否存在甲烷（这将是更具决定性的证据），这是好奇号无法检测到的，这超出了MOM的范围。
- It’s not as if I am not proud of ISRO. India developed cryogenic engines on its own in the nineties when it was denied this technology by the west. Further development led to PSLV. This is one of the best examples of money being spent in utilitarian objectives. However, Mars will not give us any tangible returns for the next two centuries at the very least.
- 我并没有为ISRO感到骄傲。 印度在90年代被西方国家拒绝分享这项技术时，就自行开发了低温发动机。 进一步的发展催生了PSLV。 这是花在功利目标上的最好例子之一。 但是，火星至少不会在接下来的两个世纪给我们带来任何实质性的回报。
- It’s be good to be proud of your country but it’s not wise to believe every piece of propaganda that you hear. One example would be the oft quoted statistic that 34% of NASA comprises of Indians. Although, there is a significant Indian presence in NASA; it is closer to 5% (which includes PIOs and Indian-Americans).
- 为自己的国家感到自豪是件好事，但相信听到的每一份宣传都是不明智的。 一个谣言的例子就是经常引用的统计数据，即印度人占美国航天局34％。 虽然印度也在NASA中占有重要地位， 接近5％（包括PIOs和印度裔美国人）。
- Gaurav Seth, who is an engineer working with ISRO has corrected me. My points on the methane sensor are not correct. He says that the MSM (Methane Sensor for Mars) is not a spectrometer but is actually a differential radiometer based on a Fabry Perot Etalon filter. This is significantly better than an IR spectrometer which was used in earlier missions like Mars Express! If you have a background on interferometry, you can try reading up more on Fabry Perot interferometers on which our payload is based, it is a slight variation of the Michelson interferometer which is taught commonly to science and engineering graduates.
- 与ISRO合作的工程师Gaurav Seth纠正了我。 我在甲烷传感器上的观点不正确。 他说，MSM（火星甲烷传感器）不是光谱仪，而是实际上是基于Fabry Perot Etalon滤光片的差分辐射计。 这比火星快车等早期任务中使用的红外光谱仪要好得多！ 如果您有干涉测量的背景知识，可以尝试阅读更多关于我们有效载荷所基于的Fabry Perot干涉仪的信息，这是迈克尔逊干涉仪的细微变化，通常向理科和工程学毕业生教授。
Great job bringing out the other aspect of this so well. While I feel it is a great achievement, I do feel we have a long way to go, and though your purpose might have been different, perspectives like yours are also needed to push ourselves harder. I completely agree that it would be naive to blindly compare statistics of two missions without understanding the intricacies involved.
出色地完成了此工作的其他方面。 虽然我觉得这是一个伟大的成就，但我们确实还有很长的路要走，尽管您的目标可能有所不同，但也需要像您这样的观点来加倍努力。 我完全同意，在不了解所涉及的复杂性的情况下，盲目地比较两个任务统计数字是幼稚的。
But I strongly disagree with your conclusions. Firstly, though the mission in itself might not result directly into anything greatly useful immediately, it’s a good stepping stone. Success and expertise in such High-tech areas come incrementally. At this stage, NO ONE can effectively predict the benefits of deep space exploration, but that is always true for High-tech areas in nascent stages. No one could have predicted the benefit of and the influence of ARPANET when it was created. No one could have predicted that website like Wikipedia would directly result out of it, and help spread knowledge so effectively and thus contribute to Human development.
但我强烈不同意您的结论。 首先，尽管任务本身可能不会直接导致立即有用的任何事情，但这是一个很好的垫脚石。 在此类高科技领域的成功和专业知识逐渐出现。 在这个阶段，没有人能有效预测深空探索的好处，但是对于处于起步阶段的高科技领域而言，情况总是如此。 创建ARPANET时，没人能预料到它的好处和影响。 没有人能预料到像Wikipedia这样的网站将直接产生结果，并帮助如此有效地传播知识，从而为人类发展做出贡献。
Investment in Research and Development should always be encouraged, however unrealistic and useless the concept might be. The justification for this is that, more often than not, research in one area has led to discovery in completely different areas. For example, do read about the discovery of penicillin, or even the first vaccine. Discovery is not an exact science. You don’t find what you go looking for. But you won’t find anything if you don’t keep looking at new areas.
应始终鼓励对研发的投资，但是这种想法可能不现实且无用。 这样做的理由是，在一个领域进行的研究常常导致在完全不同的领域进行发现。 例如，请务必阅读有关青霉素甚至第一种疫苗的发现。 发现不是一门精确的科学。 您可能暂时找不到想要的东西。 但是，如果不继续关注新领域，您将一无所获。
Secondly, as some people have said, though this might be achieved by probes of other organization, principles of economics and our documented human history has shown us that, leaving monopoly and expertise in a particular area is always dangerous for humanity. With MOM, we have a representative of Asia, the developing world, and the Indian subcontinent at MARS, and we have proven ourselves leaders in Asia in deep space exploration.
Being leaders of course, also brings the added responsibility of representing everyone well, but our people have Historically been very good at inclusive leadership (References: History of Indian subcontinent, most notably, rule of the Mauryas, Guptas and even the Mughals, to a large extent) and I personally have full faith in our ability to do that even in the current era.
Thirdly, have you read Steve Jobs Biography? When you lag at something, you don’t try to match others. You leapfrog ahead. That is only possible if you look at both matching capabilities as well as developing the key differentiating abilities in parallel. I’m not saying that MOM is a leap ahead of others, but it’s a step in that direction. Waiting to invest in advanced technology till all our problems are sorted out does not make sense. You might argue that investing in local satellite is advanced technology as well, but I’d beg to differ. Deep Space exploration is a technology and expertise in itself which we as people, who have historically always pushed the frontiers of science, should by no means be ignoring.
第三，您读过史蒂夫·乔布斯传记吗？ 当您落后于某个事物时，您不会尝试与他人比较。 你只需向前。 只有不断向优秀者看齐并拥有自己独特的能力，才有可能成功。 我并不是说MOM是其他方向的飞跃，但这是朝着火星探索这个方向迈出的一步。 在我们解决所有问题之前，等待投资先进技术是没有道理的。 您可能会争辩说，对本地卫星的投资也是先进技术，但我希望有所不同。 太空探索本身就是一项技术和专门知识，我们作为人类，一直以来推动着科学发展的前沿，绝对不应忽视。
Fourthly, I am tired of people citing our poverty in this context. Yes we have a lot of poor people. But who does not? There is no dearth of jobless/homeless people in developed countries as well. It is true, that we still have not learnt to provide for them completely, but I’d like to point out, that we have done remarkably well considering that we have been on our own for less than the last 70 years, considering the fact, that we are still recovering from the losses (natural resources and human) we incurred due to centuries oppressive rule and finally, considering that our society is just emerging from years of decay where the wisdom of lore was corrupted and manipulated by vested interests both local as well as foreign.
第四，我不喜欢人们在这种情况下谈到我们的贫穷。 是的，我们有很多穷人。 但是谁是不呢？ 发达国家也有很多失业/无家可归的人。 的确，我们还没有学会完全为穷人提供服务，但我想指出，考虑到事实，我们在过去不到70年的时间里靠自己生存已经非常出色了。 我们仍在从百年的压迫统治所造成的损失（自然资源和人力）中恢复过来，最后，考虑到我们的社会正从多年的衰落中崛起，而之前绝大部分的知识被当地和外国既得利益集团破坏和操纵。
I strongly feel that by not investing in this technology, we could not have done much better towards addressing poverty. The sum (budget of the project) is too insignificant compared to what our state spends in this direction. Problems like poverty are still present not because the state is not spending enough towards addressing them, but because of more pandemic problems in society change and our government system, and this is perfectly understandable. Change happens gradually. We can’t eliminate poverty overnight. We are definitely working towards it and that itself is a great sign, in my opinion.
我坚信，如果不对这项技术进行投资，就无法在解决贫困方面做得更好。 与我们国家在这个方向上的支出相比，总和（项目预算）微不足道。 仍然存在诸如贫困之类的问题，这不是因为国家没有为解决这些问题花费足够的钱，而是由于社会变革和我们的政府体系中的疾病，这是完全可以理解的。 变化是逐渐发生的。 我们不能一夜之间消除贫困。 我认为，我们肯定正在为此努力，这本身就是一个好兆头。
Fifthly, your points about investing instead in technology with immediate use are not relevant, simply because, it does not work that way. Things work incrementally. Let me give you a live example. In terms of talent and resources, India had an array of high-tech electronics companies in 70s was well positioned to lead in the sector. We even exported electronics then. But, because we wanted to concentrate on more pressing concerns, we stopped our focus in the sector. We are now paying for our neglecting this technology today. We were never able to develop a sustainable system again in the sector. Imports of electronics in India are set to cross those of oil by 2020 which is a huge red flag for our economy.
第五，如果您觉得某项事不能立即发挥作用，就不再对它进行投资，那是不对的。 事情是逐步进行的。 让我给你一个鲜活的例子。 在人才和资源方面，印度在70年代拥有一系列高科技电子公司，处于领先地位。 那时我们甚至出口了电子产品。 但是，由于我们希望专注于更紧迫的问题，因此我们不再关注该领域。 我们现在在忽视的这项技术付出了代价。 我们再也无法在该行业中开发可持续发展的系统。 到2020年，印度的电子进口量将超过石油进口量，这对我们的经济是一个巨大的危险信号。
Investment in technology, of any kind is never a bad idea. In fact the crazier it is the better.
Really nice comment. You have argued your points beautifully. As I’ve said before, it’s always nice to see a sensible critique of your answer.
真的很好的评论。 您已经很好地论证了自己的观点。 正如我之前说过的，很高兴看到您对答案的明智评论。
The basic premise of my answer was
1) Why MOM cannot be compared to MAVEN
2) Deep space exploration does not have any immediate benefits, hence a country where 30% of the population are below the poverty line (Page on undp.org) should not harbour such ambitions.
Your first and second points are absolutely right, all I am saying is that we ought to strive to achieve a basic standard of living for our citizens before attempting grandiose plans of deep space research. Again I am just presenting an alternate point of view. I am not saying that only my views are correct.
您的第一点和第二点绝对正确，我要说的是，在尝试宏伟的太空研究计划之前，我们应努力保证公民的基本生活水平。 我再次提出另一种观点。 我并不是说只有我的观点是正确的。
I disagree with your fourth point.
>> “Yes we have a lot of poor people. But who does not? There is no dearth of jobless/homeless people in developed countries as well.”
The countries which are sending (or trying to send, like Japan) Mars probes are in a far far better condition than India. Nearly a fifth of all world’s poor live in India. More people in India are below poverty line than entire Africa combined. (More of world’s poor live in India than in all sub-Saharan Africa, says study)
发射（或试图发射，例如日本）火星探测器的国家比印度要好得多。 世界上近五分之一的贫困人口居住在印度。 印度处于贫困线以下的人口多于整个非洲的总和。 （研究表明，印度的世界贫困人口比撒哈拉以南非洲地区的贫困人口还多）
>>”I’d like to point out, that we have done remarkably well considering that we have been on our own for less than the last 70 years, considering the fact, that we are still recovering from the losses (natural resources and human) we incurred due to centuries oppressive rule and finally, considering that our society is just emerging from years of decay where the wisdom of lore was corrupted and manipulated by vested interests both local as well as foreign.”
您说” 但我想指出，考虑到事实，我们在过去不到70年的时间里靠自己生存已经非常出色了。 我们仍在从百年的压迫统治所造成的损失（自然资源和人力）中恢复过来，最后，考虑到我们的社会正从多年的衰落中崛起，而之前绝大部分的知识被当地和外国既得利益集团破坏和操纵。 “
Wrong, we have not done remarkably well. In fact our record is abysmal. I’ll just argue my point by doing a comparison of India with Vietnam. Vietnam, like us, was colonised by the French who destroyed their natural economy. In addition, they had to face a devastating war with US which continued for twenty years and wreaked havoc on their economy. Inspite of this, their poverty rate decreases gradually from 58 percent in 1993 to 28.9 percent in 2002, 14.5 percent in 2008 and 12 percent in 2011. In India about 30% of the population is still below the poverty line.
错误的，我们做得不好。 实际上，我们的记录很糟糕。 我只是通过比较印度和越南来论证我的观点。 像我们一样，越南也被破坏自然经济的法国殖民。 此外，他们还必须面对与美国的毁灭性战争，这场战争持续了20年，对他们的经济造成了严重破坏。 尽管如此，他们的贫困率从1993年的58％逐渐下降到2002年的28.9％，2008年的14.5％和2011年的12％。在印度，约30％的人口仍处于贫困线以下。
Their per capita income and GDP growth rate is considerably more than us. Their employment rates are significantly better. They also have far lower infant mortality and overall mortality rates. Electricity reach in Vietnam (Per capita electricity consumption) is far more than in India.
I can do a similar analysis of India with many other countries like Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, etc who were colonised and faced a myriad of problems and yet whose people are in a better condition than us.
他们的人均收入和GDP增长率远远超过我们。 他们的就业率明显提高。 他们的婴儿死亡率和总死亡率也要低得多。 越南的电力供应量（人均用电量）远远超过印度。
>>”Change happens gradually. We can’t eliminate poverty overnight. We are definitely working towards it and that itself is a great sign, in my opinion.”
As shown, we have a long way to go before we restore basic dignity to an average Indian. Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore are not trying to send Mars probes. Why are we then trying to punch above our weight. Why can’t we wait a couple of more decades, till we attain a certain level, to send Mars probes which generate redundant data.
如图所示，要恢复普通印度人的基本尊严，我们还有很长的路要走。 越南，菲律宾，新加坡均未尝试发送火星探测器。 为什么我们想一口吃成大胖子呢？ 为什么我们不能再等几十年，达到一定水平，再发送生成冗余数据的火星探测器呢？
Your fifth point, though correct is not relatable to the issue of Mars exploration. You say that we ought to have invested in electronics in the seventies. Electronics is exactly the example of technology which had showed a huge promise even in the seventies, unlike Mars probes.
您的第五点（尽管正确）与火星探索问题无关。 您说我们应该在七十年代投资于电子产品。 电子恰恰是技术的例子，与火星探测器不同，电子技术甚至在七十年代就显示出了巨大的希望。
Given, today’s scenario I say that we ought to invest more in cancer research, malaria and AIDS prevention; in the field of technology, we ought to invest in indigenous development of fifth generation fighter jets. Mars exploration will not give any returns for the next two centuries at the very least.
鉴于今天的情况，我说我们应该在癌症研究，疟疾和艾滋病预防上投入更多； 在技术领域，我们应该投资于第五代战斗机的本土开发。 至少在接下来的两个世纪中，火星探索将不会有任何回报。
【博主的感想：我比较赞同 @ Smit Vora 而不是答主的观点。中国进行航天计划的时候，全国人民的状况也没好到哪儿去。NASA进行航天计划的时候也不知道能带来怎样的回报。但航天计划需要大量的人才，技术知识，材料，能极大促进科技和市场的发展。例如美国的IBM就是为了满足NASA的需求而发展壮大的。NASA原本用于太空的一些科学研究也逐渐转化为了军用民用品。例如，尿不湿~】