India’s Cost-Effective Approach to Space Exploration

India recently disclosed a range of ambitious space endeavors, allocating 227 billion rupees ($2.7 billion; £2.1 billion) for their execution. These initiatives encompass the subsequent phase of India’s landmark lunar mission, the deployment of an orbiter to Venus, the construction of the initial segment of the nation’s first space station, and the creation of a novel reusable heavy-lift rocket for satellite launches. This represents the largest single financial commitment to space projects in India’s history; however, considering the scope and intricacy of these undertakings, the funding is far from extravagant, once again highlighting the economic efficiency of India’s space program. Global experts have expressed admiration for the minimal expenditures of the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (Isro) missions to the Moon, Mars, and the Sun. India’s Mars orbiter, Mangalyaan, cost $74 million, and last year’s significant Chandrayaan-3 mission cost $75 million – figures lower than the $100 million spent on the science fiction film *Gravity*. In contrast, Nasa’s Maven orbiter incurred a cost of $582 million, and Russia’s Luna-25, which crashed on the lunar surface two days prior to Chandrayaan-3’s landing, cost 12.6 billion roubles ($133 million). Despite these modest costs, scientists assert that India is achieving significant results beyond its financial investment by pursuing valuable research. Chandrayaan-1 was instrumental in confirming the presence of water in lunar soil, and Mangalyaan carried instruments to investigate methane in the Martian atmosphere. Images and data transmitted by Chandrayaan-3 are currently attracting considerable interest from space enthusiasts worldwide. The question of how India manages to maintain such low costs is often raised. Sisir Kumar Das, a retired civil servant who managed Isro’s finances for over two decades, attributes this fiscal prudence to the 1960s, when scientists first presented the concept of a space program to the government. India had only achieved independence from British colonial rule in 1947 and was grappling with challenges such as feeding its populace and establishing sufficient schools and hospitals. Mr. Das informed the BBC that “Isro’s founder and scientist Vikram Sarabhai had to convince the government that a space programme was not just a sophisticated luxury that had no place in a poor country like India. He explained that satellites could help India serve its citizens better.” Nevertheless, India’s space program has consistently operated with constrained budgets within a nation facing competing needs and demands. Historical photographs from the 1960s and 70s depict scientists transporting rockets and satellites using bicycles or even a bullock cart. Decades later, following numerous successful interplanetary missions, Isro’s budget remains conservative. This year, India’s budgetary allocation for its space program stands at 130 billion rupees ($1.55 billion), whereas Nasa’s budget for the same year is $25 billion. Mr. Das indicates that a primary factor contributing to the low cost of Isro’s missions is that all its technology is developed domestically, and its machinery is manufactured within India. He further explains that in 1974, after Delhi conducted its inaugural nuclear test and Western nations imposed an embargo prohibiting technology transfer to India, these restrictions “turned into a blessing in disguise” for the space program. “Our scientists used it as an incentive to develop their own technology. All the equipment they needed was manufactured indigenously – and the salaries and cost of labour were decidedly less here than in the US or Europe,” he stated. Science writer Pallava Bagla notes that, unlike Isro, Nasa frequently contracts private companies for satellite manufacturing and also procures insurance for its missions, both of which contribute to higher costs. Mr. Bagla elaborated, “Also, unlike Nasa, India doesn’t do engineering models which are used for testing a project before the actual launch. We do only a single model and it’s meant to fly. It’s risky, there are chances of crash, but that’s the risk we take. And we are able to take it because it’s a government programme.” Mylswamy Annadurai, who served as chief for India’s first and second Moon missions and the Mars mission, informed the BBC that Isro employs significantly fewer personnel and offers lower salaries, which enhances the competitiveness of Indian projects. He mentioned that he “led small dedicated teams of less than 10 and people often worked extended hours without any overtime payments” due to their profound dedication to their work. The stringent budget for these projects, he explained, occasionally necessitated a return to initial design stages, fostering unconventional thinking and leading to novel innovations. “For Chandrayaan-1, the allocated budget was $89m and that was okay for the original configuration. But subsequently, it was decided that the spacecraft would carry a Moon impact probe which meant an additional 35kg,” he recounted. Scientists were presented with two alternatives: utilize a heavier rocket for the mission, which would entail greater expense, or remove some hardware to reduce the payload. “We chose the second option. We reduced the number of thrusters from 16 to eight and pressure tanks and batteries were reduced from two to one,” he stated. Mr. Annadurai explained that decreasing the number of batteries required the launch to occur before the end of 2008. “That would give the spacecraft two years while it went around the Moon without encountering a long solar eclipse, which would impact its ability to recharge. So we had to maintain a strict work schedule to meet the launch deadline.” Mangalyaan’s low cost, Mr. Annadurai attributed to the fact that “we used most of the hardware we had already designed for Chandrayaan-2 after the second Moon mission got delayed.” Mr. Bagla characterizes India’s space program achieving such low costs as “an amazing feat.” However, he cautions that as India expands its operations, costs are likely to increase. Currently, he states, India relies on small rocket launchers due to the absence of more powerful alternatives. This, however, means that India’s spacecraft require considerably more time to reach their destinations. Consequently, when Chandrayaan-3 was launched, it orbited Earth multiple times before being propelled into lunar orbit, where it circled the Moon several times before its landing. In contrast, Russia’s Luna-25 rapidly escaped Earth’s gravity by utilizing a powerful Soyuz rocket. “We used Mother Earth’s gravity to nudge us to the Moon. It took us weeks and a lot of resourceful planning. Isro has mastered this and done it successfully so many times,” he remarked. However, Mr. Bagla points out that India has declared intentions to send a crewed mission to the Moon by 2040, which would necessitate a more potent rocket to transport astronauts more swiftly. The government recently confirmed that the development of this new rocket has been approved and it is projected to be ready by 2032. This Next Generation Launch Vehicle (NGLV) will possess greater payload capacity but will also incur higher costs. Furthermore, Mr. Bagla suggests that as India proceeds with opening its space sector to private entities, it is improbable that costs will remain as low as they currently are.