IT Essentials: India's shoestring rocket scientists
Space at a steal
Congratulations India! The sight of normally sober engineers and geeks in Bengaluru whooping, clapping and throwing small children in the air after the successful landing of the Vikram Lander on Wednesday was a site to behold, and a joyful throwback to similar scenes (sans kids) from the Kennedy Space Centre many moons ago.
Of course, there were plenty who would bring us back to earth. The politicians shoving themselves forwards to take credit, and the critics who - not unjustifiably - point to the many millions in that country who live in poverty and asked whether it was money well spent. Interestingly, those critics rarely raise the issue of poverty within other nations engaged in space exploration, but that's for another day.
Because this was a day for engineers and technicians to celebrate their triumph. It was a genuine technical achievement and, as for the money, it was achieved on a (relative) shoestring of $75 million.
Rather than just chucking money at the problem, the Indian engineers used skill and inventiveness, choosing a cheaper route to the Moon by using a small rocket, and relying on the Earth's gravitational field to catapult the craft to the satellite through a series of orbits.
By contrast, Russia's politicians, who thought they could steal the limelight and reboot some Soviet-era nostalgia by beating India to the Moon's south pole, opted for a more direct route. It is not known how much the failed Luna-25 mission cost, but the more powerful rocket used means it was likely far more.
The 1969 Apollo 11 mission cost around $25.4 billion all told (equivalent to more than $150 billion today), although to be fair it did deliver fleshy humans rather than steely robots on the Moon's surface.
Amusingly, people on social media have been pointing out other space-related projects that have been undercut by the frugal Indian Space Research Organisation.
The movie The Martian, starring Matt Damon cost $108 million, while Interstellar, again featuring Matt Damon (a pattern perhaps?), came in at an $165 million, more than twice the Chandrayaan-3's budget.
Meanwhile, Hollywood splashed $100 million on the admittedly spectacular simulations of Sandra Bullock and George Clooney being thrown around in space after being hit by space junk in Gravity. Unfortunately, there was no money left for a plot.
Toy Story 4, whose Buzz Lightyear character is based on Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, cost a rumoured $200 million to make, almost three lunar landings.
More soberingly, others have pointed out that $75 million is around a thousandth (0.15%) of the £37 billion spent on the UK's outsourced test and trace system, an amount described as "unimaginable" by the Public Accounts Committee, and with little to show for the expense.
You don't have to go to space to find a black hole.
Read more about the Chandrayaan-3 mission in Dev Kundalaya's account.