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!"

71 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. Cost effectiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they're truly doing that for a twelfth (what a horrid word) of the cost that China spends, the what the hell is China doing wrong?! Or does China send up a system 12 times better?

    1. Re:Cost effectiveness by tanveer1979 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      no, PSLV is proven and satellites work properly. The Cost reduction is primarily due to the fact that the components are indegenous with very less import content. Due to cheap labour and manufacturing in India the costs are down.

      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
    2. Re:Cost effectiveness by AtomicBomb · · Score: 2

      The claim that PSLV is 12 times cheaper than the Chinese equivalent is basically a self-advertisement. The DF5 ICBM's manufacturing is about US$15M ($100M yuan). Long March 3 series is based on DF5 ICBM missile's technology. Who can believe a Long March satellite lanuching rocket is 12 times more expensive than DF5!!! (check some of the articles in www.kanwa.com, probably last summer).

      As a side note: the Chinese space program is about 100% indegenous. DF5 was developed in early 80's. With a range that can reach US, Americans could not be the partner. Former USSR had a very bad relationship with China at that moment.

      Labour cost is not high in China either. All the lanuching pads are in remote area. The salary is really low. For manufacturing cost, most agree that China is lower than India... Well, India is better in more service-oriented industry, eg IT. No one is all-rounder, right?

  2. ..a mere 15 million U.S. by Chicane-UK · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..hell, at that price, I'll launch 3! :)

    --
    "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
    1. Re:..a mere 15 million U.S. by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now that I've given it more thought, with the 10 million dollars I would have left over, I could get two chicks at once !

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  3. high-end labor in "3rd world" countries by davejenkins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A common argument in populist economics is that jobs go to the third world because of lower labor costs. Others counter this argument that it is unskilled labor, and that high-end technologically advanced labor stays within 'advanced' economies (US, Europe, Japan).

    So-- is this a case that disproves the counterargument-- that even 'skilled' labor industries can skip to the third world, or is it an indictment against the regulatory pressures/infrastructure costs of trying to launch something under a US/EU umbrella?

    There is clearly a glut of satellite launching capacity, yet prices have remained high because?

    1. Re:high-end labor in "3rd world" countries by cavetroll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      perhaps more interesting is the possiblities for space ttourism, at 1/12th the cost of China (and presumably Russia) then the cost to an individual to travel into space could fall drastically in the next few years. It would still be ridiculously expensive but affordable to more than the excessivly wealthy. With sufficantly quick developmet in this field (and a sufficiantly good safety record even at a lower cost) India may set themselves up as the first extra terrestial budget airline.

  4. Re:implications by Evil-G · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. Re:implications by mpe · · Score: 2

    India has not signed any treaties including the big one; the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Other countries that have not signed the NPT are Pakistan and Israel.

    Israel is rumoured to have nuclear missiles capable of hitting anywhere on the planet and they have made themselves a lot more enemies than India.

  6. Re:implications by JimPooley · · Score: 3, Flamebait

    Fuck the US. Space does not belong to them. The Russians were there first, dammit!

    --

    "Information wants to be paid"
  7. Re:implications by mpe · · Score: 2

    I have to wonder if this story doesn't have a more sinister side to it. Recall that India shocked the global community recently when satellite data indicated that they had developed nuclear weapons, despite treaties against such activities. If they can put a weather satellite up this cheaply, then they can probably get nuclear missiles up there for not much more.

    What country, other than Pakistan, would India target with nuclear weapons? Attacking Pakistan from India would not require techniques such as FRactional Orbit Bombardment.

    If the US had been more proactive about limiting space research by unstable and undeveloped nations,

    The attempts by the US, and other Western nations, to manipulate third world countries provide plenty of motivation for most of the world to consider the USA a danger to their national security.
    As for danger to rest of the world India is far less of an issue than Israel.

  8. Re:implications by mpe · · Score: 2

    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 government certainly does not accept this principle. As has frequently been the top story in TV news programmes for the last few months and weeks.

    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.

    The US could have done so a lot more easily, simply by virtue of having put far more stuff up there.

  9. Re:implications by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

    Or maybe they already have. 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.

    Have you ever wondered why it is that the US wants to regulate (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Saddam Hussein, but hasn't tried to do the same to (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Musharraf? It's because Musharraf already has nuclear weapons, and Saddam doesn't.

    The point is: there is a limit to how proactive even the US can be in today's world. I don't think that India would permit itself to be regulated - they have always been fiercely independant people (one of the reasons the British Empire, proportionally stronger in the world back then than the US is now, couldn't hold on to them).

  10. Re:implications by doctor_oktagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  11. Re:implications by KH · · Score: 2
    I don't have any position on whether US should intervene in weapons of mass destruction programs of other countries, but a bit of clarification:


    India is not a concern against attacking the US (or Europe) because there is no motivation to (just like there is no motivation for France, Germany, Japan, UK, Brazil or a few others with nukes to attack the West).

    Threats need three things:
    * weapons
    * delivery system
    * motivation

    Most western democracies have the first two, but lack the third.


    The only countries that demonstrably have nuke capabilities (weapon and delivery system) are: US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel. Check out the Federation of American Scientists for further info on matters concerning the weapons of mass destruction.
  12. Re:implications by KH · · Score: 2

    If they can put a weather satellite up this cheaply, then they can probably get nuclear missiles up there for not much more. Or maybe they already have.


    They already have.
  13. Re:implications by miffo.swe · · Score: 2

    Maybe the US should spend some amount of efforts in being good world citizens and stop meddling about just to get cheap oil? The US have also been very efficient in alienating countries on account of other partner countries they like to protect.

    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.

    The US is working hard to have a reason to fight Iraq when most other countries dont want war in that region.

    Whos the warmonger now?

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  14. Re:implications by tanveer1979 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Call is a flaimbait ifyouwant,ut I cant understand the GLUt in peoples minds. If a developing nation puts up satellite they can use it to put missiles, on the otherhand if a developed nation does a nuclear test then its for development of science. India is the worlds largest democracy and people there are not sadists that they want to nuke all the countries of the world.

    You may be surprised to know that in 2000 years of indian civilisation, India has never ever attacked another nation.

    As for nuclear weapon development look at this way, supposed USA didnt have nuclear weapons but canada and mexico did and were hostile to US, how would you feel, scared.. right. So when you have two nulcear armed dictatorships sitting at your borders you cannot expect otherwise.

    It is real funny a developed nation has a moral right to have nuclear weapons but an underdeveloped dosent.

    As far as space reasearch is concerened satellite launches came much after nuclear weapons. India achieved nuclear capability in 1971. Satellite lauches are for an economic reason. Already france and other european and african contries are looking at ISRO as a launchpad for their satellite and this will bring in much needed cash.
    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
  15. Re:implications by mpe · · Score: 2

    India is a more sophisticated and advanced society than large parts of North America, with one of the most educated populations in the world. To call it third world is insulting, to refer to it as unstable and undeveloped is offensive.

    "Third world" orginally ment not alligned with either the "first world", NATO or the "second world", USSR and Warsaw Pact. IIRC the term originally came from India as a way of indicating their non alignment. Only later did it come to mean "poor".

  16. Re:implications by mpe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Have you ever wondered why it is that the US wants to regulate (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Saddam Hussein,

    Thing is that Saddam Hussein is more of a secular socialist than a radical Moslem.

    but hasn't tried to do the same to (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Musharraf? It's because Musharraf already has nuclear weapons, and Saddam doesn't.

    More likely the real reason is that Hussein will no longer allow himself to be pushed around the US. The whole "terrorism" thing is a smokescreen. The US is quite happy to let all sorts of terrorists operate in the US, the British government is quite happy to let all sorts of terrorists operate in the UK. Both governments also give some of their tax payers money to supporting terrorists. So it would hardly be suprising if Iraq was prepared to harbourer any terrorists not considering attacking Iraq.

  17. Indian Billionnaire Launches 66 Satellites by forged · · Score: 2

    So, whoever with one billion dollar to spend could launch 66 indian weather satellites ! Very neat, I like that =)

  18. Probably used the good by oval_pants · · Score: 2, Funny

    ol' Indian rope trick .

    Very Cost effective.

  19. I am sick and tired of this debate by abhikhurana · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:implications by squaretorus · · Score: 2

    and...

  21. Re:implications by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

    Count the errors in parent by a known troll.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  22. Strange... by evilviper · · Score: 3
    for a mere 15 million U.S. dollars, India launched a meteorological satellite

    That's strange, I would have figured they'd have spent their local currency on the project, not American Dollars.

    If you don't get it, just let it go, and move on
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Strange... by Max+von+H. · · Score: 2

      That would be 726,750,000 Indian Rupees (INR). But US$15 Million is more understandable by the international community than the rupee amount.

      cheers,
      max

      --
      -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
  23. Re:implications by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

    Looks like Bush isn't an "US diplomacy" kind of guy, at least he's not at all working on the "eliminating motivation" part.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  24. Slightly OT, but informational by Quixote · · Score: 4, Informative
    (how's that for moderating my own comments? :-)
    Just FYI: SpaceImaging is the world's biggest supplier of hi-res satellite imagery. It would surprise many on this forum to know that 4 of the 7 satellites SpaceImaging uses are Indian (the IRS series of satellites are Indian satellites).

    India has a decent history (20+ years) of building and launching satellites. They have been helped along the way by the Russians to some extent, because the US refuses to sell them some of the advanced propulsion technology (like Cryo engines), which then they have to develop on their own.

    All in all, more competition is good, I say.

    1. Re:Slightly OT, but informational by PD · · Score: 2

      The question of American vs. Indian is one of moral neutrality, therefore, it is irrelevant to a moral decision. If a particular launch gives some jobs, and somewhere else there are jobs lost, that must be weight on its own merits, independant of the nationality where the jobs were lost.

      Concern over American jobs in particular is also morally neutral. Americans perceive it to be good to be concerned about American jobs. Does it therefore mean that Indians being concerned about Indian jobs is bad? That is the implication when nationality is included.

      The conclusion is that slogans such "buy American" (or "buy North American" if you're Canadian) are just evidence of jingoism. Truthfully, a judgement such as "good" or "bad" cannot be made here on a rational basis.

    2. Re:Slightly OT, but informational by be-fan · · Score: 2

      If American engineers can't compete and they lose their jobs, well too bad, such are the costs of capitalism. And don't tell me these are real engineers with real families, because so are they, and they need the jobs more than we do.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    3. Re:Slightly OT, but informational by fault0 · · Score: 2

      Welcome to capitalism. Who ever competes best wins.
      In fact, in the end, it helps the US economy.

  25. But you answer yourself... by clark625 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  26. Re:NASA Waste by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Everyone loves to bang on the ISS problems but seem to forget that a number of major technology and/or cash commitments that were supposed to be provided by other coutries were never delivered. This means that the US had to cover other coutries expenses.

    In other cases where technology was actually provided, extra US funds had to be paid to verify it because of minor communication issues. In fact, to date, I think Canada is one of the few coutries that actually completed what they committed to doing.

    I'm simply bringing this up because ISS is probably not the best example to site when to comes to US funds and space research.

  27. India has a history of satellites.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    India has been in satellite business since long, and currently the man who was behind all this, who has been the scientific advisor to the indian government, who has been awarded the highest civilian honour of the country, is its President. Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, President of India, has always talked about self reliance in the field of space and defence. This is one more step towards it.

    You guys working in big companies must have seen vision statements for a big company, which drives the whole company, but have you heard that India too has a Vision, and working towards it ?

    visit www.abdulkalam.com for details.

    Also, "Wings of Fire" the autobiography of the president, is worth a read.

  28. Re:implications by Debillitatus · · Score: 2
    Have you ever wondered why it is that the US wants to regulate (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Saddam Hussein, but hasn't tried to do the same to (Islamic dictator and harbourer of terrorists) Musharraf? It's because Musharraf already has nuclear weapons, and Saddam doesn't.

    Extremely well said. This may very well be the entire explanation.

    --

    Come on, give it up, that's

  29. Hello? Can you engage your brain please? by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Hello? Can you engage your brain please? by mpe · · Score: 2

      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.

      Also assuming that the nations the US chooses to attack will play by the expected rules. Sooner or later the US is going to want to go after a country capable of defending itself. (Or of initiating a preemptive attack against the US).

      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!

      History is littered with cases of the side with the biggest and best weapons failing to win.
      The US probably isn't big enough to fight more than a certain number of wars at once. Especially on it's own...

    2. Re:Hello? Can you engage your brain please? by fault0 · · Score: 2

      Yes, but if a whole bunch of countries attacked the US at the same time, for a large period of time, the US would definatly lose.

      Of course, I don't think this will happen, because the US is a huge economic power. Most countries aren't exactly scared of the US' military power compared to it's economic powers.

    3. Re:Hello? Can you engage your brain please? by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      Like a dictator would? Gee, how nice.

      Err.. no, more like Monroe doctrine. Unless you're calling Monroe a Dictator, then I guess you're correct.

      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?

      My point is that a potential nuke put in space is more than enough of a reason to consider SDI.

      There are these things called "international treaties".

      And? I hope you realize that space *will* be colonized, regardless of world treaties. The treaty was originally created in the early 60s. Why? Cause America were scared as hell about a little satelite named Sputnik omniously beeping around the planet. We [no necessarily the US] will eventually colonize the Earth's outer orbit, the Moon, Mars, it's just a matter of time.

      Damn it.. I didn't want to debate point for point..

      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.


      Good point and I somewhat agree. Although, my original point was the lack of support from our NATO allies. When times get tough for our allies, I doubt the US will blink an eye in helping our allies. I'm disappointed it's not reciprocal. Nelson Mandella is just one example. The man was imprisoned for how long? He finally becomes a free man and then divorces his wife a year later. But before I go too far off topic..

      Where are they now? Empires are made to fall.

      Yes, they do. Several books have been written on this and although I don't want to admit it, history is a good indicator of what will happen. However, my point was that in history, how many of the super powers were as generous as the US and had no plans for expansion?

      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!

      Yes, they should be quaking in their boots. The next time a terrorist group decides to target the US, they should fear for their lives. The next nation that harbors terrorists and provides sanctuary will think twice. That's the point. I'm obviouslly not saying let's invade Greenland because we can. I'm saying that if anyone is thinking about an offensive against us, be it small or large, they will think twice.

      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.

      Not likely, but good job here on the post. Congrats on your rating of 5. I don't really disagree with what you have said, I just think you misinterperted what I was saying. I'm just a patriot that vented some of his anger about 9-11, perhaps in the wrong way. God Bless America and may god have mercy on those who seek to destroy it.

      That's all I have to say. Thanks for reading this.

    4. Re:Hello? Can you engage your brain please? by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      History is littered with cases of the side with the biggest and best weapons failing to win.

      Turn off the Braveheart DVD! Trying to decide who would win a war with lets say the US vs China is like saying who is better Superman vs Batman. Of course, we all know that superman is.. er.. the one that can fly, not the paralyzed, although making good progress, superman

  30. India's Space and Missile programs are related... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's interesting that the new president of India was also the father of its space and missile programs - the PSLV is a descendant of the original Satellite Launch Vehicle, SLV-3, which was also the basis for a short-range SSM, Prithvi ("Earth"). Under Dr. Abdul Kalam's tutelage, the DRDO embarked on an ambitious program to develop a suite of missiles, many of which have either been inducted or are being tested. It's quite possible that his popularity as head of the Indian Space Research Organization, and later as DRDO chief, led to his choice as president.

  31. Re:implications by mpe · · Score: 2

    this is either blind prejudice or blind ignorance. But just in case someone doesn't know the facts, I'll bite:
    size of India : 2,973,190 sq km Area - comparative: slightly more than one-third the size of the US # of citizens : 1,029,991,145 (July 2001 est.) these data (unlike your prepostrous claim) are not blown out of my ass, but can be found here [cia.gov]
    size of Israel : 20,330 sq km Area - comparative: slightly smaller than New Jersey # of israelly citizens : 5,938,093 (yes, that's six millions, not billions ...) again, this is from the same source [cia.gov]


    The size of a country has little to do with how many enemies they have. The only country India is in conflict with is Pakistan, which is also a nuclear power. So MAD applies.
    Israel is currently in conflict with Lebanon and Syria, who have no nuclear deterance. Also Israel has effectivly been in a state of civil war for over half a century.
    Only one of these countries makes a habit of invading it's neighbours, ignoring UN resolutions and even tried to sink a US navy ship.

  32. The Main Point: Spy sattelites by tig · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:The Main Point: Spy sattelites by lliinnuuxxlover · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hey, You missed the boat Pal. India had already put a spy satellite in space in the previous PSLV launch.A simple search at google gave a dozen stories pointing to this.

      On your other points I agree. India has a long standing succesfull space program. India has always invested heavily (relative to other internal investments) and is bearing the fruits now. INSATS (communication satellites),Remote Sensing sattelites, now a weather satellile, PSLV and other launch vehicles have driven indian Space program to new hights.GSLV (GeoStationary Satellite Launch Vehicle) is next, and then maybe a mission to the moon. All this would make India stronger as it helps India earn foreign Exchange and also all the new technology trickles down to the industry.

      I think putting spy satellites up there is not the main point and would not buy you much leaverage when you can buy such services on the internet!. But overall , growth of Indian Space industry would help India be stronger in other areas , including defence.

      --
      This Post was entirely made up of recycled electrons making up recycled signals to generate recycles ASCII to generate t
  33. Re:implications by pipsqueak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > 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.

  34. US and European Launches? by dwalsh · · Score: 2

    For comparison, how much do US launches cost?
    What about the European Arienne rocket?

    --
    ${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
    1. Re:US and European Launches? by jpatokal · · Score: 2
      For comparison, how much do US launches cost?

      Around $250 million for a shuttle launch, closer to $1 billion if you figure in base maintenance etc. Or $85 million for a Titan IV.

      What about the European Arienne rocket?

      $85 million for an Ariane 4, around $200 million for an Ariane 5.

      As usual, Russians manage the cheapest launches, putting a Soyuz up in orbit is figured to be less than $20 million.

      Do remember that these figures (courtesy of Encyclopedia Astronautica) are not all that comparable, because the above costs are the price of putting the entire thing in orbit, when in practice they carry multiple satellites. An Ariane 5 can also lift up a hell of a lot more stuff than the Indian PSLV.

      Cheers,
      -j.

  35. Re:implications by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  36. Re:implications by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

    finders, keepers! ...come and take it!

    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  37. Re:Overthrow your corrupt regime. by fantomas · · Score: 2

    Your comment could apply to so many countries, remind us which one you are posting from? ;-)

  38. Re:implications by fault0 · · Score: 2

    > Israel is rumoured to have nuclear missiles capable of hitting anywhere on the planet and they have made themselves a lot more enemies than India.

    And at the same time, Israel gets sold many missle defense technologies from the US, which they consequently sell to other countries (India being one of them).

  39. Re:implications by fault0 · · Score: 2

    Yeah, jeez. Indians=Pakistani until just 50 years ago. The British should have never partitioned India (they did, over Gandhi and other's objections.)

  40. Re:implications by fault0 · · Score: 2

    Of course India is 3rd world. In fact, it was India who coined the term during the non-aligned movement.

    And, currently, Montana's per capita income is roughly ten times higher than India's. Also, it's literacy rate is about 30-40% (depending on the census year) higher.

  41. Agriculture. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not about spying or ICBM's or anything, the key factor here is, believe it or not, agriculture. I know other patriotic Indians have problems accepting this, but India is still largely an agriculture-based economy, with the population especially concentrated in rural areas. With the exploding population creating pressure on food resources, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research actively involves itself in creating better yielding food varieties .

    Students of Indian history would have heard about the green revolution that created self-sustainence in food; a crucial post-independence achievement considering food scarcity situations such as the 1943 Bengal Famine (the one on which Amartya Sen did economic research and won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economics).

    Now with satellite technology, ICAR can identify which land areas are suitable for which crops and therefore goad farmers into growing those varieties (remember that India is a sub-continent; you have all sorts of terrain, from deserts to plains to plateaus to, of course, mountains.

    So accurately knowing which crop goes best where is critical information for the hungry masses (over-cliched, but it's true). Methinks that this will be the biggest use, followed closely by telecommunications and satellite television AND then by urban planning (Mumbai will have 24.7 million people by 2005).

    PS:- Note that I'm not saying that satellite technology wont be used for other purposes; I definitely want India to use cutting-edge technology against a couple of motherfuckers, but talking only about that would be misleading.

  42. Very true. by afxgrin · · Score: 2

    At my University, there are plenty of older students from India and Pakistan who are trying to get a 'Western' education. I've sat in classes of engineers who can't get work cause their foreign education is considered worthless.

    So they end up coming here, just to find out that their education is worthless, and they find out they have to go BACK to University again here. I feel really bad for these people.

    So when people complain saying that immigrants are stealing their jobs in the tech industry, many times it's just not true. (or not as pervasive as some make it seem to be) The only immigrants that maybe stealing tech jobs are rich immigrants.

    1. Re:Very true. by be-fan · · Score: 2

      Rich immigrants aren't willing to work for an unnaturally low cost. Thus, in this case, its not stealing the job, but taking it fairly.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  43. Re:implications by mikeee · · Score: 2

    At which point did these fine European nations drop out of "The West".

    Sometime in the 60's, give or take a decade, as best I can figure. :)/2

  44. Re:implications by Knife_Edge · · Score: 2

    "You may be surprised to know that in 2000 years of indian civilisation, India has never ever attacked another nation."

    Which is not to say India has never ever engaged in war. I guess attacking another nation during war is ok. Another thing that makes war completely ok is to not recognize the entity that you are fighting as a nation. I like the rest of your comment. Unfortunately I believe all nations are guilty of engaging in violence at sometime in their history, and not always for moral reasons. Saying that a nation never started a fight is at worst lying, and at best a glib attempt to justify violence.

    Although India does not seem to be interested in building a world empire, things would be better if they could just leave Pakistan and Kashmir alone. I have heard too much rhetoric justifying violence in those regions.

  45. Best News Since the Transistor! by Baldrson · · Score: 2
    As the person who represented the grassroots attempt to reform commercial launch policy in the US, I just want to say this commercial launch by a non-Western nation is the best news since the invention of the transistor!


    Sputnik doesn't compare because it was communist grandstanding that created a communist agency within the West, NASA, that succeeded in suppressing progress in space for decades. This challenge from the Dravidian-Aryans hybrids of India is bound to light a fire under the moribund pioneering culture of the West -- particularly the nations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand and hopefully the US (assuming if the US can hold together in the face of such challenges to its pioneering heritage -- which I doubt and hope it cannot for the sake of the remnant of its pioneering subpopulations).

  46. Re:2nd world has high-end labor by geoswan · · Score: 2
    This is the 2nd time this month where a slashdotter has incorrectly assumed they knew what the 2nd world or 4th world is... presumably because they misunderstood the term "3rd world".

    Third world is a term from early in the Cold War. Those who coined the term saw all developed Western nations lined up against a monolithic communist bloc. In those days there was hardly any trade between Capitalist countries and Communist countries. It was like they were on two separate planets. The third world referred to technologically underdeveloped, non-aligned nations.

    Nowadays third world may have lost its idealogical roots. But it still bugs me when people invent their own meanings for 2nd world, 4th world, etc.

    The 2nd world would be former communist bloc nations. Don't use it for other meanings, OK?

    I like MickLinux's characterization of IMF loan repayments as "tribute". In the most (formerly?) corrupt nations the west made huge loans to these countries. On paper the loans were made to aid development, but corrupt cronies the west installed, like Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, diverted those funds offshore to their Swiss bank accounts.

    Yes, the "middle east" was more advanced than Europe for a long time. I am not sure that corruption is the explanation of Europe's rise over the "middle east". By today's standard things were pretty corrupt in Britain even 200 hundred years ago. Somewhere I have a copy of Marvin Kitman's very funny "The making of the President, 1789" and "George Washington's expense account". By today's standards Washington's corruption make the Gates, Ballmer, and the CEOs of worldcom, ENRON etc look like choir-boys.

    We may think of India as a very poor country. But I had an Indian buddy, 20 years ago in University, who used to remind me that India was the 10th most industrialized nation on Earth. Kind of like that saying that inside every large person there is a skinny person screaming to get out. So the billion or so people in India includes more college grads than many smaller nations.

    I don't know where India ranks now. But I read an editorial when the leaders of the G7 were thinking of letting Russia join them, to make the G8. The editorial writer said that the G7 would really have to be enlarged to be the G18 to include Russia if admission was based solely on GNP.

    Concerning the term "middle east" -- this is also a new term. What we now call the "middle east" used to be referred to as the "near east".

  47. Re:implications by aengblom · · Score: 2

    Typical American assh*le syndrome. Where's a moderator when you need one

    Ack. Just because one guy is an idiot here don't call it typical "american"

    I live in the county and I should know. That's not typical.

    (Most American's havn't heard of those other countries ;-) )

    P.S. in defense of that guy, read more carefully. Brazil and "a few others" are the ones with nukes to attack the west. Of course, technically Brazil doesn't HAVE nuclear weapons capability. Just the capability to have the capability ;-)

    --


    So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
  48. Re:implications by ErikZ · · Score: 2

    Ooo. Yes, and the world quakes under the thumb of that rouge terrorist nation "Israel".

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  49. Re:implications by ZigMonty · · Score: 2

    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.

    And the Australian Government. But we are basically the 51st state of the US under our current government.

  50. Re:implications by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

    Who you calling a teenager? ;-)

  51. Re:implications by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

    pipsqueak.. sounds like something the US can easily overtake in about 2 minutes. ;-)

    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.

    That's just a cop out. The US is world power, partly because of it's location, a good ocean away from it's potential enemies [although Canada has been pissing me off lately], it's mostly because of our freedom and pride which make us a great country. If it was just a case of natural resources making a great country, then Russia should have been a world power 10x the US. I think you feel a little disgruntled because the UK is so small and *does* lack natural resources and is probably limited by it's lack of those natural resources. Absolutely no offense to the UK too. I consider your country to be our greatest ally and respect your ideals and culture immensely.

    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.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this, but someone must have cause you have a score of 3. I think you're telling me that because of America's growth and natural resource consumption, we'll eventually have to seek an expansionist policy, which will lead to US initiated attacks. Personaly, I don't see this happening with the potential advances in science; which hopefully one day will free us from our strangle hold on the need for oil.

    Cheers and we'll see you in Iraq.

  52. Please pardon the ostrich by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2



    Them chinky ostriches will say anything to make China looks good.

    They will say that China never need anything from abroad, they can invent everything. In fact, that ostrich that you replied to was implying to the world that China's space program is 100% indigenous, without parts nor ideas from abroad.

    Go back several decades, near the end of WW II, it was the Germans who invented the jet engine, as well as the rocket (in modern sense), US, USSR and the rest of the world, in one way or another, got hold of the technology and add on to it.

    So whichever chink who think that it was the Chinese who invented the modern rocket, please unplug your head from the sand pit.

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  53. ROGUE! The Word is ROGUE. by Kintanon · · Score: 2

    Now I have to type a bunch of crap down here to make slashdot pass through my editorial comment.
    What waste of bits and bytes.

    Kintanon

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  54. Re:implications by Kintanon · · Score: 2

    And... India is STILL Third World by the original definition as they are not considered Allies to the US or to Russia/Former Soviet Bloc countries. Making them still a part of the Third World politically. Economically I would consider them on par with the former Second World countries, but not quite up to First world status simply due to having SO MUCH population that it drags down their average.

    Kintanon

    --
    Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  55. Re:implications by khuber · · Score: 2
    Yes that was off topic. Now will the great and wise moderator of my post please blow me?

  56. wrong implications by osolemirnix · · Score: 2

    Threats need three things:
    * weapons
    * delivery system
    * motivation

    Most western democracies have the first two, but lack the third.

    I would like to add that to use a nuke, you don't have to fire it. You can "use" it by threatening others quite well (worked in the cold war). A threat also implies that you are willing to fire. So I would say that countries who have the first two certainly have the third, in other words the motivation to "use" them, one way or another. And they do quite frequently, the US, China, India, Pakistan, etc. do it all the time (implicitly threatening).

    Your statement is also wrong in another aspect: in fact, most "western" countries do not have nukes, even though they may have the technology to build them should they so desire. Most European countries do not have their own nukes, Germany being one particular example that you got wrong. Germany never built their own nukes, though nukes of NATO allies were stationed in Germany during the cold war (though not under direct control of the German military).

    So maybe you should catch up on some history reading. I suggest you start with Sun Tsu's "The Art of War", quote: "All warfare is based on deception." So much for perceived threats.

    </offtopic>

    --

    Idempotent operation: Like MS software, wether you run it once or often, that doesn't make it any better.