Slashdot Mirror
Low-Budget Indian Satellite Launch
Geekonomical writes "On Thursday afternoon, for a mere 15 million U.S. dollars, India launched a meteorological satellite into geo-synchronous transfer orbit some 36,000 kilometres above the equator using a modified version of its highly successful space workhorse, the polar satellite launch vehicle (PSLV). The article also claims that China spends 12 times as much as this for a launch!"
Why exactly should third world countries be dependant on first-world countries for satellite data ?
.. a lot of this technology is dual use. Deal with it.
Why exactly should third world countries have to pay a stiff price to launch satellites in space when they can do it cheaper ?
Why exactly should anybody have to pay a stiffer price to launch satellites in space when a third world country can do it cheaper (provided they can prove that they can do it reliably).
BTW, India was not a signatory to any treaty prohibiting nuclear testing, but that is a whole other debate. I personally did not support the testing not because I am against it in principle, but because I think it did not serve Indian strategic interests. The problem is that a conservative right-wing party rules the federal govt. in India and they've had "we must have nukes" in their election manifesto for the last 30 years !
In anycase, the US is attempting to limit space research by forcing Russia not to deliver cryogenic engines. However, every attempt to block technology by denial only leads to a determination to develop it on your own. Once you have achieved a certain basic scientific-industrial complex, there is precious little one can do to keep the inexorable march of technology from moving forward.
So, yup
If the US had been more proactive about limiting space research by unstable and undeveloped nations, then we wouldn't have to worry about this.
Are you suggesting that the US has the right or responsibility of regulating space research? What goes on in another country shouldn't be up to the US, unless it directly affects them.
The US could just have easily have placed nuclear weapons in space as India could have, as it is only speculation that India has done.
And, although India is less developed than, for example, the US, why should they be forced to stay that way?
Yes, of course we have to do something about places that have unstable, posssibly insane, unelected leaders, maintain massive nuclear stockpiles, regularly violate international treaties, actively block biological and chemical weapons monitoring, fund active space programs and have had a desire to have weapons in space for years (as long as no-one else can have them).
just like there is no motivation for France, Germany, Japan, UK, Brazil or a few others with nukes to attack the West).
At which point did these fine European nations drop out of "The West". Before the USA we were "The West".
Typical American assh*le syndrome. Where's a moderator when you need one?
Another reason for the low price is the ISRO(Indian Space Reasearch Org) does not have unlimited funds unlike china where funding is much more liberal, so cost cutting is high on agenda.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I am sick and tired of this debate. Everytime there is a news item about Inidia, we go into this debate of first world, second worlk and third world. Tell me something guys, is this really important?? I mean the fact is that India launched a satellite, why not just concentrate on that??
I will tell you the truth about Infratstructure in Indian universities. Its pathetic. But this is also a fact that when U have 1 billion ppl and so few unis, the competition to get into a decent university is intense. Infact for admission into IIT( India Institute of Technology) about 300,000 ppl appear in the test and only the top 1000 or so make it. So to get admission into a decnt university in India, you have to be in top 0.33% of the population. Now atleast some of such guys( those who are not lured away bu US companies) join organisations like ISRO. They are already intelligent enough and soon they get grip of whats going on. Thats the story of India.
But always remember, behind every thousand who made it, there are 299,000 who din't.
What's under yellowstone?
Just goes to show how the NASA bureaucracy is wasting tax payer dollars. Don't misunderstand me, I think the idea of a government-funded space program for the purposes of non-commercial research is a necessary thing. But the agency running it so wasteful.
They throw millions/billions of dollars to contractors to produce shoddy equipment (anyone remember the Hubble?). They plan important scientific missions to Mars and then forget to convert from imperial to metric?? They remotely turn off a probe, and then (surprise) they can't turn it back on.
I guess no one there was ever a network administrator. Anyone who's ever run a server farm can tell you it's generally not a good idea to reboot a vital server from remote (because it might not come back up again). It's bad when you are 10 miles across town, it's really bad when you are a couple million miles away.
And after all of this, you don't hear about the director of operations getting fired, or resigning in shame. They just shrug. Oh, well. Lost another one. Only 350 million dollars. No big deal.
The Italians successfully put a satellite in space for what amounts to government pocket change. Maybe this sort of thing will be wave of the future. Built for cheap, launched for cheap. Shoestring everything. We shouldn't make fun of Italy for being cost-conscious. If it works, we should be applauding them, and trying to follow their example. If we could have built the ISS for 1/12 the cost, maybe it would have been completed 5 years ago and we'd be on our way to building a station on the moon.
Are you suggesting that the US has the right or responsibility of regulating space research? What goes on in another country shouldn't be up to the US, unless it directly affects them.
And, although India is less developed than, for example, the US, why should they be forced to stay that way?
Personally, I don't think the US needs to bully India over this. But with respect to your thoughts, the US could say that they are threatened by another nation being capable of delivering nuclear weapons to our doorstep. I don't think the US has any intention of worrying about this now.
That said, if India becomes more advanced than the US, then the US is going to have a lot to say about that. That's just the nature of the beast. Americans have an elitist complex when it comes to other nations (yes, I'm an American and yup, I've got the complex, too). Most all Americans believes that the US is the greatest nation in the world and those same individuals are willing to prove it over and over again. If India starts to compete with the US, we will be directly affected and the US won't be happy. The US will likely force India to remain comfortably beneath; or another cold war will begin.
Anyways, you're right that the US shouldn't worry about what other countries do, unless it directly affects us. The problem is that everything directly affects us. Well, at least so we always seem to think. That's just the way it goes. I can't say I'm always proud of that.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
When you are the strongest and most powerful nation on the planet, you can dictate any policy you want.
Like a dictator would? Gee, how nice.
I don't know how near sighted you are, but having a potential nuke in space is a threat to my freedom; even if it's not pointed at the US.
Hmmm. The US has the potential to destroy every man, woman and child on the planet many times over. Does that mean that every man, woman and child has the right to use any means necessary to deny the US the use of these weapons and thus ensure their personal safety?
It's about time we start our Space Defense Initiative. I forget who, but some dolt in govt stated that we shouldn't bother with a Space Defense system now cause we won't need it for another 20 years. Like in 20 years we can just say "Launch the space defense system!"
There are these things called "international treaties". One of these international treaties (one of the ones that the US hasn't unilaterally reneged on - yet) outlaws the use of space-based weapons.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of these little puke nations telling us what we can and can not do.
Personally, it's clear to me that a lot of the "little puke nations" are sick of the US telling them what to do, whilst simultaneously playing by its own set of rules when it wants to.
Russia can't invade former Soviet states to take out terrorists and India can't do the same in Kashmir but the US can waltz into Iraq as and when it pleases? Nice double standards you've got there, bud.
In the history of our planet, how many super powers were there that didn't seek to expand their empire.
Where are they now? Empires are made to fall.
They should be thankful we're content with what we already have.
Right on, bro! We've got the biggest guns and all those other shitty nations, even the ones that we call friends, should be quaking in their boots. If we want something then we'll take it, simple as that. Why shouldn't we? We're the biggest and the best. Fucking, yeah!
Yeah, right. I hope you don't mind when the large family down the road comes into your house and strips you of everything that you've got. Why shouldn't they? There's more of them then there are of you, there more powerful, etc. Enjoy your TV, etc while you can and be thankful that they're content with what they already have - for now. Because, when they kick down the door, you're going to be shit out of luck, pal.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Everybody seems to be missing the larger point here. This capability is the stepping stone to being able to put up spy satellites. In a few years India will be able to keep tabs on Pakistans cross border infiltration and nuclear installations, and hopefully, in the case of fundamentalists taking over( which I dont think will happen, Pakistan being to a large extent a fairly sensible country), be able to make a pre-emptive strike.
If you want to learn more about the origins of this programme read Abdul Kalam's Wings of Fire. Its a very inspiring book. That Kalam is now President of India(which is a titular position without much power, unlike the Prime Minister), is
itself a testament to where self-reliance and competition in science and technology can take one.
Hopefully the programme can now be commercially self sufficient, and the pace of space exploration and missile defence research becomes faster. As you have probably realized in the last year, South Asia ia a tough neighborhood: a dictatorship to the west and east(Pak and Burma), the worlds largest communist state to the North, and ofcourse, central asia and the unstable 'stan's near by..
Lastly, such development can only serve as a long term counterpoise to scary go-it-alonists and US supremacists like some members of this administration...
The Inscrutable Gargoyle
> Well maybe he isn't but I am. When you are the
> strongest and most powerful nation on the
> planet, you can dictate any policy you want.
"dictate"... so America should be the worlds "Dictator" for our benefit... I like it. Very liberal of you. Thank you for looking after us and listening to our own countries beliefs and ideals (I live in the UK).
> Personally, I'm sick and tired of these little
> puke nations telling us what we can and can not
> do.
What an idiot.... the US spends all it's time talking about a global economy & politics and it's "responsibility on the world stage" but makes the assumption that the global economy & politics will be made up of western (read US) ideals and that the US is the only one to have a say.
Then when the realisation that through sheer weight of population numbers, land mass & available resources other nations outside of the US are capable of the same achievements (sometimes a lot more effeciently) they get all insular and over-protective (ref: Agricultural, Steel & manufacturing subsidies) to f&ck up those developing nations.
Who says a global community will reflect only US ideals? It's foolish and ultimately dangerous to think like that. Be a bit more open minded about congratulating other countries on their achievements.
> In the history of our planet, how many super
> powers were there that didn't seek to expand
> their empire. They should be thankful we're
> content with what we already have.
What you already have is a highly unbalanced, global, political make up where one nations population is using up far more resources than it has at it's disposal and one nations beliefs over represented to the rest of the world. This is at the cost of the rest of the world and every move the US makes is designed to protect that situation.
You may be content with what you already have but the rest of the world isn't, cos you're f&cking us over to keep it.
Maybe the US should spend some amount of efforts in being good world citizens and stop meddling about just to get cheap oil?
Even though the US has plenty of its own oil.
The US have also been very efficient in alienating countries on account of other partner countries they like to protect.
Usually what the US is interested in protecting are the interests of US corporations operating abroad. From this POV the "best" government is something along the lines of a dictator friendly to the corporate interests in question.
If there are threats against the US its not only because muslims and other non wealthy countries are evil by nature. Something has brought them to this conclusion and its not just the koran or lack of money that is to blame here.
Lack of money is more likely to be an effect of US intereference. Maximising the profits of US corporates dosn't do much to help the economies of the countries they operate in.
The US is working hard to have a reason to fight Iraq when most other countries dont want war in that region.
The US wants a war for reasons more to do with domestic US politics. Virtually none of the rest of the planet is interested in a war with Iraq. Apart from the US only the UK and Israeli governments appear to think there is cause.