In his autobiography 'Wings of Fire', A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, himself an ISRO rocket scientist & program director who later became a highly popular President of India (he draws crowds to this day, several years after office), quotes Gen. Patton: "A good plan violently executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week." That could well summarize the ISRO style.
Kalam also highlights the leadership-by-open-discussion style of Vikram Sarabhai and Satish Dhawan who successively headed ISRO in its formative years. If that sounds commonplace, bear in mind this was in a civilian government organization of the 1960's. People like Sarabhai (a Cambridge Tripos and inheritor of a family business empire) and Dhawan (a double PhD in math and aerospace from Caltech) could have played the part and been overbearing - but they deliberately chose to build a "startup culture" where people were encouraged to speak up.
Yes. "Wings of Fire" is an excellent book; a must read. Also, if anyone's interested in knowing about ISRO's origins, their "hacker culture" etc. then I recommend these two excellent books: "A Brief History of Rocketry in ISRO" by PV Manoranjan Rao, P Radhakrishnan; and "India's Rise as a Space Power" by Prof UR Rao. These two books give an excellent overview on how ISRO was started (starting from INCOSPAR, TERLS, Sounding rockets, Rohini, Aryabhata, SLV, ASLV, PSLV, INSAT, to GSLV Mk3).
The article mentions "jugaad" as the Indian way of doing things inexpensively. It roughly means a "hack", and it really is very fundamental to the Indian engineering brain. I once read a list of interesting words in foreign languages and Portuguese had something similar. I think all engineering teams should have at least one jugaadu person on it.
The book "fortune at the bottom of the pyramid"[1] has several interesting case studies on building businesses on budget for the needy. Some of them like "Jaipur foot"[2], "Aaravind Eye Care"[3] are excellent examples of how "jugaad" works in India. It doesn't have to be a kluge as someone stated below. Ofcourse the word is liberally used to indicate ways to circumvent the "official" or "ethical" way. So, it depends on the case at hand ! If used in a positive way, "hacker" is a good english substitute for it.
I think "jugaad" gets ingrained naturally when you are on a budget and don't have access to all the cool tools but have a desire to build something.
I'd say it's both a source of national pride and shame for us, in the sense that we can find ingenious solutions, but often those are only required because we didn't do it right in the first place.
That's mostly why I kind of feel like I want to wait and see if the spacecraft actually manages to do what it's designed to.
If you have to send multiple 70+ million dollar missions because the hacks keep failing the cost benefit is not all that good compare to the more expensive 300 million dollar mission.
From what I know, jugaad's meaning crosses the boundaries of ethics freely. In the business community, unethical practices also get the same title. I am not a native Hindi speaker, so would be good if someone can elaborate.
"Jugaad" is more make-do/being (very) resourceful in situations where there aren't other options. "Hack" has a more playful, irreverent connotation whereas jugaad is resourcefulness forced of circumstances, in places/situations where if you aren't inventive, you are left behind. In Hindi, "jugaad" also means to gather/manage/take care of.
We have a saying called "Jerry rigged" in the South that we use. I think it is very similar to jugaad and can be thought of has using what you have available to hack something into a working state again (or something new made from different parts).
I found this out when wondering if "jerry rigged" shared anything with "jerry can" which came from British troops admiring the quality of the liquid containers the Wehrmacht had in WW2 "jerry == German":
Funny to see this about jerrycans, as that reminds me of how on Kerguelen island, which is in places littered with various empty oil drums mostly put there between WWI and the 1950's by US, French and German ships, one could easily recognize the German ones from the others.
The German barrels are for the most part still in good shape, some with almost no trace of rust, while the others are all crumbling into rust (on the other hand, they're also much heavier and unwieldy).
Yes I have also heard of Jury rigged (and a couple other unsavory terms). I was always confused how the term could relate to a court's "jury." It makes a lot of sense now that I now it actually comes from a French word. Very interesting thanks for the reply.
I detest the spin on "Jugaad" that this article provides.
Having lived day-to-day in India I have seen way too many unsafe and potentially deadly "jugaads" every single day.
From the CNG Car driver hacking up his Car to use a cheaper subsidized gas tank, to the hospital hacking up their BP monitors to run longer despite failed parts to continual flouting of Petrol storage rules keeping it in tin cans.
This stupid mentality of taking dangerous short-cuts and flouting safety rules in the name of innovation just needs to die. You can escape disaster some of the time but finally you must pay the piper some time.
So while ISRO is indeed a bright spot, the craft they designed in this case was un-manned, not designed to land, and carried on top of the older workhorse PSLV rocket and was more of a technology demonstrator.
What the NYT article didn't mention was the lack of sterilization of the ISRO spacecraft.
A huge portion of the budget for a probe like MAVEN [1] or JUNO [2] is spent reducing the chance of Earth microbes colonizing Mars or a moon of Jupiter.
It would be a huge shame for us to have doubt whether the first extra terrestial microbes we find in the solar system were really alien or simply Space Age Earth based life
>This comment has nothing to do with India, ISRO, politics or Mars, but I am curious if anyone with expertise can comment on the clean room practices seen applied in this video. Is it odd that the workers don't have on full 'bunny' suits and have (what seems to be) a relatively large amount of skin/hair unprotected? I don't know if it matters that much, it just seems a little lax given the cost of failure.
> Firstly, I've visited ISRO Bangalore(A few years back). And I did see the exact things you mentioned. I did ask the guy(Not sure, if he was the PR guy) who took our class for the tour. His answer was, they were likely assembling some test equipment and not the real equipment that was going to space.
(Which unlikely given parent's NYT article:)
> The modest budget did not allow for multiple iterations. So, instead of building many models (a qualification model, a flight model and a flight spare), as is the norm for American and European agencies, scientists built the final flight model right from the start.
It's unclear whether the room is a particulate controlled up to standard, but they may (hopefully) do sterilization through chemical and heat treatments, but that alone isn't enough for planetary protection.
I didn't downvote, but I felt a mood-affiliation reason to downvote in that trying our darnedest to never contaminate Mars will stop us from colonizing Mars.
Separately:
Over the course of billions of years, rocks have moved from Earth to Mars and back. If colonization were a matter of just moving from one to the other, it would have happened already. In fact, answering that question seems very scientifically useful, so that's a good reason to use sterilization techniques. But since we haven't found any current life on Mars so far, it seems unlikely that it's trivial for life to gain a foothold, especially life adapted for survival in Earth environments.
EDIT It's a Mars orbiter, not a lander. If it somehow incorrectly tries to land on Mars, the Martian atmosphere will incinerate any bacteria that somehow survived the UV environment in space (plus any solar flares). NB: I haven't done the math to determine exactly how much heat would be put out by an unplanned EDL. If someone else could, that would be splefty.
I don't understand why colonizing Mars seems so important and urgent to you (and many other people around these parts, you're not the first one I see taking that approach) that you're willing to risk ruining evidence that could lead us to a better understanding of life itself.
I mean, I'm all for space exploration and everything, don't misinterpret what I'm saying, but let's say we manage to get on Mars, establish a colony. In the long run we manage to terraform the planet, maybe. Now what? We get a new retirement centre on Mars?
I mean, at this point it's just about planting a flag and "go team humans!"
I mean, we're currently in the process of ruining our perfectly fine planet, I'm not so sure I'm willing to believe we would be "improving" Mars in the long run.
As long as we don't have any reasonable solution for leaving the solar system we're basically stuck with a bunch of rock within reach, let's not ruin everything just so that we can build Disneyland Universe on Mars. That would seem a very selfish thing to do. Think of the Dodos.
> In the long run we manage to terraform the planet, maybe. Now what? We get a new retirement centre on Mars?
We might get new resources. There are many wars happening that are all about resources. Also, we might get space, which could reduce tensions on earth.
> I'm not so sure I'm willing to believe we would be "improving" Mars in the long run.
What could we possibly do to Mars, that in practical terms could make it worse? It's uninhabitable already. If it matters so much to you, then I ask you if the same applies to some planet a billion light years away from us.
> As long as we don't have any reasonable solution for leaving the solar system we're basically stuck with a bunch of rock within reach, let's not ruin everything just so that we can build Disneyland Universe on Mars. That would seem a very selfish thing to do. Think of the Dodos.
Or we could also work with what we can reach. I mean it's obviously bad, that Dodos are extinct now, but was life better a thousand years ago, when we were unable to reach and work with oil and gas, even though Dodos still existed?
> We might get new resources. There are many wars happening that are all about resources. Also, we might get space, which could reduce tensions on earth.
The problem is that we grow exponentially. How long would a 2nd earth last us at our current rate or expansion and resource consumption? Not to mention the massive amount of resources we'll have to take from earth in order to reach Mars and make in inhabitable.
> What could we possibly do to Mars, that in practical terms could make it worse? It's uninhabitable already. If it matters so much to you, then I ask you if the same applies to some planet a billion light years away from us.
It's uninhabitable for us alright, but it's not like we already knew everything about Mars. The whole point of my argument (and the reason NASA is careful about not contaminating marsian soil) is because we don't know what we could find.
And no, it wouldn't matter to me if mars was a billion light years away from us. If we could easily reach new and unexplored planets I wouldn't be objecting to messing with Mars (after all, there are billions of other specimen for us to study), but that's obviously not realistic in the short term (for a big value of "short").
> Or we could also work with what we can reach. I mean it's obviously bad, that Dodos are extinct now, but was life better a thousand years ago, when we were unable to reach and work with oil and gas, even though Dodos still existed?
I'm not sure what's the argument, do you think the colonization of Mauritius and the extinction of the dodo made humanity progress significantly?
As in all things, there's a middle ground to be found, we don't need to destroy in order to move forward.
Look, I fully agree with you, that ideally we should find a middle ground and learn not to destroy in order to move forward.
But my view on this issue is based on what is practical and what history teaches us.
We actually always destroy things, to move forward.
I'd rather have us not spending so much energy on dominance and wars and instead on science and social systems, but the truth is that there is no sign that we will ever change our ways.
That's why I applaud any country whenever it puts some energy into something, that isn't just about wars and geopolitics.
Even if it's very limited resources they are investing, it's in my opinion still better than doing nothing at all, or spending the 70 million on a few tanks that will rot away somewhere close to the Pakistani border.
I just don't get why people think they, upon examining a problem for mere moments, think they can dismiss something as unnecessary or frivolous.
I trust the NASA engineers to know more about this problem than you (random commenter on the Internet) or I. Should I not?
Can you explain to me what your thinking is regarding your belief that you can glance at an issue like this and trump the thinking of dozens of field experts in moments?
I'm happy to criticize many NASA design decisions, like the entire Space Shuttle concept. (Which honestly has a lot to do with political requirements but are still bad decisions.)
But what do you think I've said in the comment you replied to that trumps NASA's design decisions? That sterilization is unimportant? I think NASA sterilizing the equipment it uses to detect life is obviously the right design decision. There are results from the Voyager program that are still uncertain because of incomplete sterilization.
I'm referencing specifically around your comments related to sterilization ("If colonization were a matter of just moving from one to the other, it would have happened already.").
It's simply baffling to me, that a person could sit in front of a computer with absolutely no education or understanding in a topic and call a litany of experts in a field all wrong within the same hour as learning of the specific problem in the first place, or even claim to know what is "obviously the right design decision".
It ought to be surprising to me that a total stranger would accuse me of having "no education or understanding of a topic", and then proceed to shit on me for daring to agree with NASA's practice of -- seriously, of all things -- sterilizing the equipment used to detect signs of life.
Firstly, this is about what you did, not about you. Relax, we're just folks talking about stuff on the Internet, I'm not calling you Satan or accusing you of treason! No one's going to die if we can't agree.
Secondly, you said this, "If colonization were a matter of just moving from one to the other, it would have happened already." I'm trying to understand why you feel you're qualified to make a statement like that. Are you an expert on this topic? If not, that's okay!
You say you're agreeing with NASA's practice, but I guess that's just the flip side of the same coin, isn't it?
What I'm trying to get at is why people (not just you, and you've hardly "sinned" at all here) do this broad stating of opinions on scientific topics like this. It seems to lend credence to the idea that all thoughts are equally important, when we all know that's not true.
To me, this feels like the same kind of thing that we get on the news, when we see "experts" deny climate change by pontificating broadly with the same level of apparent airtime as actual experts who argue in favor of it using their expertise and their experimentation results.
I think it should be clear by now that a lot of people think that their expertise in software automatically qualifies them to make authoritative statements on behalf of every other field of science and engineering.
I think there is a 'meta' aspect to software development. We almost work one layer above other branches of engineering.
Which is what gives that feeling that you can ideally work on any problem and solve it. Because that is exactly what we do, look at the diverse domains that benefit from the use of computers and software.
I didn't mean to say that NASA or the Indian engineers know more or less than one another, even if they disagree. It's just not for us, the folks who don't actually know much about this topic, to make determinations.
Or maybe it is. I was hoping to discuss that point.
If we don't sterilize our craft, how do we then verify either that life arose independently on a non-terrestrial surface or that ejecta carried it? Hopefully the value of sterilizing our craft becomes apparent as one considers the scientific value.
You'd think so, but the structures in the rock show it was never heated enough to be entirely sterilized. That was a possibility people had previously hypothesized about, but not something that had previously been proven.
Didn't downvote, but disagree with your assumption about 'lack of sterilization'. The official word from ISRO is that they comply with 'planetary protection' requirements.
"ISRO said the spacecraft was built according to the planetary protection implementation requirements specified for ‘orbiter’ category of missions."
Some articles speculate about the rigorousness but can't confirm. Implying it doesn't exceed them doesn't equate to skipping the sterilization. Besides, it's carrying satellites from developed countries (France, Germany, Canada & Singapore), which I doubt would be complicit in creating an international controversy.
>A huge portion of the budget for a probe like MAVEN [1] or JUNO [2] is spent reducing the chance of Earth microbes colonizing Mars or a moon of Jupiter
I don't know where you got that from? There's documentation that NASA sterilised things but nothing I've seen that says it cost a significant proportion of the budget.
I can't provide evidence of lack of heat and chemical based sterilization treatment post assembly of spacecraft but see my updated post for sources on lack of clean room procedures DURING assembly - particularly the video at http://www.space.com/23199-indias-first-mars-mission-prepare... which shows assembly conditions very clearly
It would be a huge tragedy if we are the only life that has ever evolved in the universe and it all quietly ends on the same planet it started it.
If there's a chance we can get even single celled life established on a another planet we should go for it. The loss of a bit of science is small potatoes compared to the fate of life in the universe.
I'm not sure there is a catastrophe big enough to destroy all life (and all hope for future life) on Earth that would not also destroy Mars (think Sun exploding). Even a major asteroid strike wouldn't kill off everything on the planet, as per the dinosaur extinction theory.
In my not so humble opinion I think that's a really naive and ignorant way of looking at it. What if there is life on Mars that's unique to that planet? Introducing our microbes and germs to that planet could potentially wipe out the native fauna.
It's extremely unlikely that germs that evolved under Earth conditions could out-compete the germs that evolved in Mars conditions in the Mars environment.
There are certainly such a thing as an invasive species, but that's survivor-bias. If you move some alligators to the desert they are not going to decimate the local camel population.
Precisely what I was thinking, I wonder what's all the discussion about, the MOM will be inserted into a highly elliptical orbit around Mars, with a planned periapsis of 365 km (227 mi) and apoapsis of 80,000 km (50,000 mi) [1]. It will not even come close Mars's atmosphere. Wouldn't that take contamination out of the question completely?
Is there even any general moral imperativ, that every or at least most cultures agree with, which says that we should not contaminate other planets?
No.
Or is there any entity on this planet, that could claim it has legitimate interests (or even ownership) in keeping the atmosphere of Mars clean, which should prevent India from sending people to Mars in a way that we don't like?
Again, im my opinion the answer is no. Why? Because there are enough planets that every human being on earth could have its own.
We could also look at it from the benefits vs risks perspective.
Here I also reach the same conclusion. The risk of having contaminated one planet with organisms is almost non-existent compared to the potential benefits of making another step towards the colonisation of other planets.
Once our technology gets better, and we can reach to more distant places, you can have any amount of pristine and untouched planets you could ever want.
But first we've got to improve our capabilities by actually trying it.
> Because there are enough planets that every human being on earth could have its own.
Bro, we're never reaching those planets, FTL travel is a fantasy. Are you really willing to bet whatever life is on Mars on the hope that humans will someday be able to travel faster than light? What we could learn from extraterrestrial life, even if it's only microbes, could open vast new areas of biology research - potentially curing diseases or teaching us to survive in a much warmer Earth.
If you accept the ability for people to travel to and live on other bodies in the solar system, it's very plausible to assume that people can move between star systems, without any scifi stuff like warp drives or wormholes.
So your argument is basically "don't do it, because what I believe in is more probable than what you believe in" even though there's no way to calculate those probabilities.
No, my argument is that there is no moral standard regarding this issue, that the majority on this planet agrees with, that there is no legitimate interest or ownership that could force anyone from doing otherwise, and that the potential benefits (colonization, resources, space) outweigh the belief in something that might be on Mars.
Meanwhile your argument is based beliefs where you can't even possibly calculate a probability, just like the belief in god.
What we have is our tools and capabilities to try and work with what we can reach at the moment in our solar system.
There may be some confusion about jugaad. Some may think it is equivalent of "jerry rigged " or doo-hickey or a kludge.
I would argue that jugaad is not a solution that is not driven by the problem at hand or the pressing need; rather it is driven by an attitude or a way of thinking, that is reinforced by the harsh reality of day-to-day living in India. I once worked for an electronic typewriter company In India which hacked and improved upon cannon's electronic typewriter s/w to support all of India's scripts (27 of them ). My team did not have capability to design stepper motor controls from bottom up like what canon had achieved. We never aspired to build a new electronic typewriter. We looked at the Cannon typewriter and asked why can't this support Telugu and Tamil etc. etc. Once we figured out the why , we worked to overcome it. Canon ended up licensing this hack to support other scripts worldwide.
Please note that I am saying rocket design is same as hacking stepper motor control s/w . However the driving attitude is quite similar.
i see little overlap with sending humans to mars. i dont think its a great way to send people such a distance (and expect to get them back) by cutting corners in planning, redundancy, etc. And its my understanding that the bulk of the costs of going there is getting all the fuel and supplies from earth to there, which is not solved by paying rocket scientists 1000$ a month.
NASA already operates on a shoestring budget. the article makes it sound like NASA has lavish funds. And they do so with a really good track record.
It is so expensive to get all the fuel and supplies from earth to mars precisely because you have to pay a rocket scientist to make a very large rocket
Lets still hold our breath, the Mangalyaan hasnt made it to Mars. NASA and a contractor made some fatal conversion mistakes and overshot Mars. I doubt they will have the same problems but it still needs to reach orbit.
Seems like a pretty ill conceived article. Might as well have written about how American car companies like GM are able to produce much less expensive cars than the Italians like Ferrari. Both cars have engines, tires, etc... but WOW, can the Americans do it for so much less...
Could you be more substantive with your analogy. Ferrari is producing cars in a category because they have buyers/racers who want/need it. NASA wouldn't be interested in making luxury spacecraft just because they can.
I'm more interested in your argument about what's the "value per dollar" that the two missions are achieving (rather than equating them with GM & Ferrari). This PSLV sent by ISRO was used to piggyback satellites from Canada, Germany, France & Singapore.
If there was nothing on the roads but fancy Ferraris, and then somebody came along and made a cheap GM that got the job done for much less, that would be newsworthy.
To me it's not that it's newsworthy or not, but how it's presented.
It's not that Americans/Europeans can't do what the Indians did, but that we're not interested in doing what they did. The article seems to confuse the two.
However, if Superman leaps over an entire building, then is asked to jump off a curb and declines, I think you can safely assume he could do it, but doesn't feel like it.
If I jump off a curb and say I could jump over that yonder building (if I felt like it, but I don't). Then, yes, that would be lame.
I am all for the mutually exclusive programs of poverty and technological advancement (in this case sending vehicle to Mars orbit) but the other part getting rid of the poverty and other things (corruption, bad governance,Individual's discipline, and safety, are pretty much going down the drain). I don't why these scientist can't find solution Bangalore's garbage drop issue, traffic issue and real estate woes and so on. I think India is driving on wrong direction with not governance on education system which i feel is the singe source of all the issues.
I think we are very good as individuals, but we fail collectively. That is why even the poorest Indian home will be clean, but the wealthiest public street could be dirty.
Never thought about it and you are right on "That is why even the poorest Indian home will be clean, but the wealthiest public street could be dirty". I think the root cause is the discipline in public, i am trying to assert when we (Indians) became so selfish or given up about public issues. One reason i could think is that urbanisaztion is still settling in and we do not know how to behave and live in cities yet because i remember that in our village we use undertake common interest and maintain those like ensuring that the pond are cleaned in time and volunteer one day man hour or equivalent money (coolie) to be given to local panchayat.
"Just days after the launch of India’s Mangalyaan satellite, NASA sent off its own Mars mission...named Maven. Its cost: $671 million. The budget of India’s Mars mission...was just three-quarters of [...] $100 million..."
I would like to point out that Maven is 1.8 times the mass of Mangalyaan (in terms of "launch mass" according to Wikipedia; Maven's "payload mass" is 4.3 times that of Mangalyaan). Mass costs.
Indian space program is one of the most reliable (less number of accidents) space programs in the world.
Just yesterday Indian successfully launched PSLV to put 5 foreign satellites in orbit. It's 26th consecutive successful flight.
It is the most reliable and cost effective rocket in the world right now.
Salaries do play a part in bringing the cost down but that is not the only reason. ISRO functions like a very agile organisation with small teams focusing on specific targets with autonomy. Also, a lot of cost is saved in the testing phase as well.
Money alone wont get you far in this area. It's talented engineers and the right strategy that is important.
Otherwise you couldn't explain why the Soviets/Russians had such a remarkably reliable space program, even though they always had less resources than the US.
From what I understand, NASA tends to overload projects with thousands of requirements and features, which introduce additional points of failure, whereas the Russians focus more on the basics.
It seems like the Indians will also use the same strategy, and focus on the basics and reuse what they already have, which makes sense, considering their limited resources.
The F-35 has the same problem. It is built to perform in so many roles, that it is bad in every single one of it. (price, weight, maneuverability, payload, range)
I'd like to know the hardware cost and number of man-hours put into each mission. Labor is a large part of a creating and operating a spacecraft, so comparing man-hours eliminates the differences you might find due to the expected rate of the engineers in each country.
I should also note that when I say "hardware cost", I'm also including a break-down for each sub-contractor (and sub-sub, sub-sub-sub, etc) since you can't really say you bought a large component from one vendor so that's the hardware cost of that component. This criteria makes it pretty hard to every know the actual hardware cost versus engineering/manufacturing hours.
If India can field rocket scientists greatly more cheaply than the US, I'd submit that still says something important about the two countries.
"I should also note that when I say "hardware cost", I'm also including a break-down for each sub-contractor (and sub-sub, sub-sub-sub, etc)"
One nice thing about money in a mostly free economy is that you can use it as a bound on such things. If you can buy a widget at $5, the company you are purchasing it from can not have put more than $5 of resources into it (barring some exceptions, probably none of which matter for this). It doesn't matter if they sub-sub-sub-sub-contract it out, it's still bounded by the final cost. Again, if India can source a component for much more cheaply than the US, it still says something important and real about their program. The differences are fully real, and I don't think trying to "undo" them and produce the artificial numbers you are proposing will produce any useful real information.
That's besides the point ... if India is doing something different (more entrepreneurial, less bureaucracy, etc), it would be worth understanding what it was. One clue in the article was that they had a limited time to reach their launch window ... Might that constraint be responsible for cutting back to just what was necessary?
I never claimed what they accomplished wasn't impressive. I tend to think their entry level rocket scientists (at $1000) generated some of the savings but what was the "mindset" that allowed the rest of the savings?
Kalam also highlights the leadership-by-open-discussion style of Vikram Sarabhai and Satish Dhawan who successively headed ISRO in its formative years. If that sounds commonplace, bear in mind this was in a civilian government organization of the 1960's. People like Sarabhai (a Cambridge Tripos and inheritor of a family business empire) and Dhawan (a double PhD in math and aerospace from Caltech) could have played the part and been overbearing - but they deliberately chose to build a "startup culture" where people were encouraged to speak up.