Slashdot Mirror


India Test-Fires Cryogenic Rocket Engine

alphakappa writes "Wired News reports that India has successfully testfired a cryogenic rocket engine that can be used to 'launch high-altitude satellites, send a man to the moon -- or build intercontinental ballistic missiles'. The rocket which typically has to fire for 12 minutes during flight was fired for 17 minutes during ground testing. So are we gonna see competition in the moon race? Remember, India has already spoken about sending a mission to the moon and it has joined the Galileo consortium along with China."

256 comments

  1. Cryogenic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Confusing name for a technology that (appears) to have nothing to do with time but sharing the chemicals with head freezing

    1. Re:Cryogenic? by corrie · · Score: 1

      Chrono is time.

      Cryo is freeze.

    2. Re:Cryogenic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      Boy, those Greeks have a word for everything!

    3. Re:Cryogenic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Damn, if India gets ahold of Chronogenic engines, they could *still* beat us to the Moon!

  2. Before by Gyan · · Score: 3, Informative

    anyone comes out and spouts the "stolen or bought technology" meme, the Wired article says

    India's bid to develop its own cryogenic engines suffered several setbacks. In 1992, Russia agreed to give India the technology but reversed the decision after Moscow signed the Missile Technology Control Regime with the United States. Washington objected to giving India the technology because of its potential use for nuclear missiles.

    Russia later agreed to sell fully built engines, without passing on the technology, to India.

    India developed a rudimentary form of its cryogenic technology in 2001 and several tests were held after that to fine-tune it.

    1. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No need for the stolen "theme", I am glad that they are able to develop their own rocket technology... which I guess that means they no longer need the economic aid, right?

      Just like China I guess, they can send people in orbit... I guess they no longer need foreign monetary aid.

      As far as I can see, it is all good news now. It is gonna save us a bunch of money now, oh wait...

    2. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why steal? A significant of the students in US science and engineering programs are Indian, and I don't know how many are from China. It's funny, the US will "teach a man to fish" in countries that it bitches about IP theft, and will "give a man a fish" to 3rd world countries who really need some sort of economic base. Dumbasses.

    3. Re:Before by sujan · · Score: 0

      What economic aid are we talking about?

      Is it pretty huge? Figures please. Who funds it?

    4. Re:Before by twiddlingbits · · Score: 0

      I assume you have never heard of reverse engineering? You can bet they did some of that! I also suspect they have hired a few unemployed Russian rocket engineers. If you want to get there fast you pay for outside knowledge, and learn from the masters. To go from "rudimentary" to what they have now in 2ish years isn't possible without some expert advice.

    5. Re:Before by MoP030 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Before anyone comes out and spouts the "stolen or bought technology" meme
      ...we should recall the meme that US and Soviet rockets are based on German rockets (further developed by German scientists).
      --
      the most sexp i get is my paren-mode.
    6. Re:Before by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      That's most likely because we can see some benefit for the US in "teaching a man to fish" in countries that are developed, but we don't stand to gain any benefit from the third world countries.

    7. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US rockets - yes. Russian rockets - no. they developed them by themselves

    8. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why must everything here turn into a US bashing thread? Oh I forgot, this is Leftdot....

    9. Re:Before by tealover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, it was bad timing for the Germans. If they had waited a couple of years to begin WW2, they probably would have had usable rocket technology which may have changed the course of the war.

      Thankfully, Hitler was an egotist and pushed thousands of German intellectuals out of Germany and to America and other Allied nations.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    10. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why must everything here turn into a US bashing thread? Oh I forgot, this is Leftdot....

      DOn't forget, most of the non-US people that bash the US are really right-wingers. Ie, flaming 'republicans' of their own countries that blame the US for everything, kind of like Republicans blaming Commies for everything in the 50's.

    11. Re:Before by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Yes, but its disingenious of us to claim to be be charitable when we are actually expecting a nice return on our investment.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    12. Re:Before by ninejaguar · · Score: 2, Informative
      A significant number of German scientists were captured by the now defunct Soviets. They were immediately put to work to fight the cold war.

      You may even remember that half of Germany belonged to the Soviets until the 90's. There was a little something called the Berlin wall that separated communist Germany from democratic Germany.

      = 9J =

    13. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Most of democratic Germany was in West Germany. The Berlin wall separated the democratic part of Berlin from communist Germany, which it was surrounded by.

    14. Re:Before by bluGill · · Score: 0

      Of course before that German rockets were based on American science. I'm to presume that American science was in turn based on the works of many others scattered all over the world. And I also presume that the Germans could not have built those rockets without other non-american science from all over the world.

    15. Re:Before by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      FYI, the USA is in debt to China. In fact, most of the USA's debts are with China.

    16. Re:Before by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Not really. The first Russian rockets were V-2 clones (e.g. R-1) and they essentially kidnapped the Wasserfall design team for several years.

    17. Re:Before by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Rockets aren't that good without having nukes in them. A bomber can deliver more explosive mass with less cost.

    18. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought everyone stole the rocket design from the chinese fireworks rockets from long ago! :)

    19. Re:Before by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

      The reason Hitler started WW2 when he did was because Nazi Germany was in financial crisis and a war was the only way to get out of the red.

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    20. Re:Before by mikerich · · Score: 2, Informative
      US rockets - yes. Russian rockets - no. they developed them by themselves

      The Americans got the vast majority of the V2 development team and hardware; they then demolished the production lines which fell inside the Soviet sector of Germany.

      Sergei Korolev and his team were sent to Germany to review the wreckage, they retrieved plenty of information which they put to good use in the R1 which was a Soviet copy of the V2.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    21. Re:Before by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1
      I believe the figure is something like 38% of American securities are owned internationally. (I.e. debt.Story here. As for the source, I can't vouch for it. But I picked the page with the lowest number I could find in the first 30 googs, just for the sake of argument.

      But this page shows the change in holdings of U.S. Treasury Securities for the year 2003. I noticed a huge spike for China and I wonder if that is debt we are accumulating from within the U.S., or if they are buying the debt from other countries. As it stands now, they probably own about 25% (roughly) of the total debt. (Pause for reflection.)

      I find it sadly ironic that the biggest communist country, China, owns one quarter of the bastion of capitalism, the U.S. (Using the "popular" definitions of the systems we have, respectively.)

      What do you all think would happen if they bought up ALL of our debt?

    22. Re:Before by turgid · · Score: 1

      Nyeah, and the Chinese had the first rockets, of course........ :-)

    23. Re:Before by axxackall · · Score: 2, Informative

      Before that there was the RGD team headed by Tsiolkovky with sucessful flights in 1930x. Later, right after WW2, Soviets used the chance to kidnap some German scientists, but I heard the rumor (inside Soviet space research secret labs) that those German scientists did not really helped by remaking V-2 blueprints. If Germans would not have been kidnapped, then Soviets would just have to sponsor further reseach and development of the original RGD seria.

      --

      Less is more !
    24. Re:Before by javiercero · · Score: 1

      No, you are confusing trade deficit with actual debt. India and China sell more to the rest of the world than they buy from the Western nations, since they both have very protectionistic markets. However both countries have hughe loans against those same western countries. So think of it as your neighbor who has a store, he sells a lot of stuff to you, you can not sell much to him/her.... and yet you have to give him/her large chuncks of money as loans since he/she claims to live under poverty (and you do not want the poor neighbor's kids to go hungry at night, think of the children you neighbor tells you). Later on you discover that your neighbor is spending a large chunk of cas in making his or her own backyard bottle rockets. The Economist had a great article a while back on China's and India's space programs under that argument.

      China owes money to the US, via credits that it has underwriten under IMF loans. Same goes with India, in fact both China and India are the largest debtors, which is no surprise since both combined represent over 1/3 of the world's population.

      So the dude who posted the fact that now that both China and India who have enough money to "play space race" they should also have the money to pay back their external debt.

      Anyways, I expect to read the ultra nationalistic Indian responses back....

    25. Re:Before by sujan · · Score: 0

      Just ramifications of Globalization and so called 'free-trade'. It was inevitable.

      They are selling service and you're buying it. It is not an 'aid'. They dont owe you anything.

    26. Re:Before by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Sure, I am talking about USA foreign debt, the total debt is a different thing.

      Regarding playing space race instead of paying up to IMF, it isn't like the USA spends less money on defense and space to pay their foreign debt either is it? FYI the USA spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined and the USA spends more money on space than the rest of the world combined.

    27. Re:Before by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
      "No."

      No? No what? You appear to have repeated what I stated, but that's ok. For further information regarding the Soviet-bound East Germany, visit here and here.

      For further information about captured German scientists working to build Soviet rocket technology, read this.

      = 9J =

    28. Re:Before by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      That may indeed be true now-a-days, but airplanes and bombers in the 40's had the distinct disadvantage (particularly german bombers) of being easy to shoot down. Jet engines reduced some of the ease of devastating ground fire (and shifted the burden to missiles - gee, interesting event that turned out to be).

      While payload is small, the ability to hurl bombs into your enemy's homeland without giving him the ability to hide or shoot them down is a HUGE advantage. Eg: Tomahawk cruise missile. Expensive, but useful.

    29. Re:Before by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      Actually, based on these Treasury Department figures, I calculate the foreign held percentage of US Treasury securities at about 21%. Another 41% of the public debt is held by the federal government itself (in the Social Security, Medicare and Highway trust funds). The Treasury Department publishes lots of good data about the public debt on the web.

      From the first link you can see that China controls about 8.6% of the foreign debt, trailing the UK (9.8%) and Japan (33%).

      Now here's a question. If Federal trusts control 41% of the public debt, who is going to lend us than $2.8 Trillion (more by then) when the Republicans "privatize" Social Security and Medicare? I'll go out on a limb and speculate that US private citizens and pension funds will not fill that void.

      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
    30. Re:Before by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      Espionage goes both ways. So does education. What's wrong with education?

    31. Re:Before by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      US bashing is neither left or right.

    32. Re:Before by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Sure, but when playing total war like WW2 was, resources are very, very important. While a barrage of missiles could prove useful to intimidate certain targets into submission, it was the massive carpet bombing campaigns that really hurt. More terminal effect for the same money.

      Of course you need control of the airspace in order to conduct these sorts of massive bombing campaigns and yes, radar and AA made it more difficult. But then again, SAMs weren't so much of a problem back then as they are now.

      Just compare the terminal effect of Allied bombing vs the effect of Axis missile attacks for e.g.

    33. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's trying to make a Soviet Russia joke...

    34. Re:Before by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      You kind of illuminated my point a bit. Had Germany done a little bit of extra effort in rocketry, they would have had SAM's. Aim for the bombers, and all of a sudden, you've shifted the balance.

      Short of nuclear weapons though, I doubt very much that Germany would ever have kept control of continental Europe for the very reason you gave above: resources.

    35. Re:Before by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      They had SAMs. Ever heard of Wasserfall? The thing is, Hitler always pushed offensive weaponry over defensive weaponry. The budget was low and only because the other people in Hitler's government pushed him to do something about Allied bombing.

      Besides, the Allies led the field of Radar and Sonar. SAMs require good Radar systems in order to be effective.

    36. Re:Before by javiercero · · Score: 1

      Again you do not seem to understand debt in loans, vs debt put on your currency.

      The US and other Western and Asian powers put debt against their currencies in the form of bonds. I.e. you get IOUs, and you get to "own" part of the economy. Much like a stock market of sort.

      The loans that India and other developing countries get, are not agains their curerncies. Think of it as credit card debt.

      So they are two very different types of debt. The world needs a country like the US or the EU that allow money transactions and investments agains Euros or dollars. However, rupies are not something that can be of any use.. simply because the Idians are not going or can not afford to be the engine of the world's economy.

      It is all a part of fundamentals... really.

    37. Re:Before by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1
      Well, I guess I know that I'll be flipping a few extra burgers in the future. If I work nights and weekends for the next 65,536 years, I think I could lend it to us. No problem.

    38. Re:Before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...we should recall that "two wrongs make a right" is a fallacy.

    39. Re:Before by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The Chinese developed solid fuel rockets. The US built the first Liquid Fueled rocket. Actually one American built the first Liquid fueled rocket and that was Robert Goddard.
      One of the the great Myths of the modern age is that the US space program dependeded on German technology. Not really. Many inovations where native. The only real decendant of the V2 programs that was the US used was the Redstone.
      The Russians also used a few V2s to jump start there programs but again they went there own way pretty quickly.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    40. Re:Before by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      How do you explain the fact that Huntsville, Alabama (home of the rocketry program) has German Hill [so named for the German rocket scientists who lived there]? A number of German scientists were very influential in the early rocketry program through Apollo at least.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  3. actually... by acehole · · Score: 5, Informative

    It does have to do with freezing of sorts, because the gases that are required for fuel oxygen and hydrogen (as well as a mixture of others) are gaseous in normal atmospheric conditions. They are required to be cooled down to a liquid state, hence the name "cryogenic rocket engine".

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:actually... by fox2mike · · Score: 1

      To be precise, the range of temperatures (of the Oxy-Hydrogen mixture) varies from -200 degrees celcius (on the ground, uptil launch & ignition of the Cryo Stage) to about +3000 degrees Celcius during the actual burn time of the stage.

  4. Abu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    So, pretty soon Abu will have a mini-market in the moon!

    Doh!

    1. Re:Abu by VampireByte · · Score: 1

      Do you mean Apu from the Simpons?

      --

      Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.

    2. Re:Abu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean the Simpsons from telebision?

    3. Re:Abu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow how smart! Mentioning "Apu" in ever India related story is getting to be as old as the stupid overlord shit

    4. Re:Abu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you meen: "Do you mean the Simpsons from television?" ?

    5. Re:Abu by r2q2 · · Score: 1

      No he means the little monkey from Aladdin.

      --
      My UID is prime is yours?
  5. Re:not the moon by TomV · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was listening to a debate about outsourcing on BBC Radio the other night, and they pointed out that in Bangalore there's a lot of worry about all the call centre backroom IT jobs getting outsourced to China, where the costs are so low that India can't possibly compete.

    I agree that the Moon isn't the *real* purpose of the Indian space programme, but, just as with the US 30 years ago, aiming high helps to hit the lower targets, like comsats, earth imaging and so forth, not to mention the huge boost to national self-esteem and all the benefits that can bring in sheer morale terms - when you've got to the Moon, what challenge can you honestly say is too big to even attempt?

  6. moon race? nah... by Barbarian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So are we gonna see competition in the moon race?

    No, we're just going to see India launch a few satelites to show that they can (because if you can launch a satelite, you can build ICBM's), I doubt they will want to go to the moon.

  7. Re:actually... (+a URL) by trystanu · · Score: 5, Informative

    A nice article on Cryogenic Rocket engines is available here .

  8. New arms race? by KingKaneOfNod · · Score: 1

    I think not. The IC in ICBM is inter-continental - however India's rivalry has always been with Pakistan, who are on the same continent (thus no ICBM required for nuclear destruction). So hopefully this won't bother Pakistan at all.

    1. Re:New arms race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Inter-Curry Ballistic Missile?

      ~~~

    2. Re:New arms race? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BM stands for Bollywood Movies :)

  9. am i the only one confused ? by kettlehead · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "manned mission to the moon...."
    Am i the only one confused. Indias moon ambitions were said to be restricted to only firing a unmanned galileo type mission to the moon. Which is pretty simple considering that they were planning to use the existing GSLV(Geo-Stationary Launch Vehicle) set-up. Why the sudden shift to a manned mission? A manned mission to the moon will never happen in India because of a number of reasons most notably the fact that we spend peanuts on space, compare isro's(indian space research org.) budget to NASA.

    Also i thought GSLV - the satellite launch vehicle was totally indigenously built, Though WIRED seems to claim that the engine was Russian!
    Anyway i think its a great achievement considering the amount India spends on space research.

    1. Re:am i the only one confused ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, you're not. many are just pretending to be 'in the know', as that's what they've been trained to do, no matter what happens/that there's flames coming out of their .asps.

    2. Re:am i the only one confused ? by fox2mike · · Score: 2, Informative

      Every other component of the GSLV was built in India. The Cryo engine came from Russia.

    3. Re:am i the only one confused ? by jfoust · · Score: 1

      Indias moon ambitions were said to be restricted to only firing a unmanned galileo type mission to the moon.

      India is developing Chandrayan-1, its first robotic lunar mission, but has no manned program of any kind, let alone a human mission to the Moon. It's not clear what the source of the claim in the AP article is, but don't count on accuracy or detail on such issues from mass media wire services.

      Also i thought GSLV - the satellite launch vehicle was totally indigenously built, Though WIRED seems to claim that the engine was Russian!

      The GSLV currently uses a Russian-built cryogenic engine for its upper stage. The engine they tested Friday is indigenously developed.

    4. Re:am i the only one confused ? by donutello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The actual quote is:

      Sharma said the technology was "crucial to the ultimate moon shot," alluding to India's plan to send a manned mission to the moon before 2015.

      It sounds like it's the journalist who concluded that the "moon shot" was about sending a man to the moon instead of just a satellite.

      Never attribute to malice what can just as easily be accounted for by bad journalism.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
  10. Moonshot? by jabberjaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So are we gonna see competition in the moon race?
    Perhaps we should wait until India has actually placed someone in orbit before talking about a moonshot? I am all for an increase in competition when it comes to space, but aren't we getting a wee bit ahead of ourselves?

    1. Re:Moonshot? by Brahmastra · · Score: 1

      The moon mission India is planning will be unmanned.. Don't think there are plans of a manned mission.

    2. Re:Moonshot? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I don't see why we shouldn't talk abuout moon mission - Apollo project was also announced long before US put it's first man into space.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  11. Re:moon race? nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last I heard europe's attempt to get a flight orbiting the moon was nixed at the last moment when the US/NASA withdrew permission. How are china and india getting the go-ahead here?

  12. Re:What I want for Xmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's the americans who give them the jobs. If that makes the indians or the americans look bad is an interesting question.

  13. Tech support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this because Dell wants a tech support center on the Moon?

    1. Re:Tech support by kautilya · · Score: 1

      It won't take a lot of effort to turn any topic on India to turn it into a "outsourcing" issue. I will bite this bait. It is unfortunate that people see "outsourcing" as something "new". Well, we have been guzzling Pepsi and Coke, wearing Levis and Gap, and all our computers run Intel chips. Not to mention our cars. US is biggest arms supplier to India after Russia. Many of our manufacturing firms import machinery from US. Isn't this a form of oursourcing? Aren't our jobs in beverages, chip manufacturing, clothing industry, defense industry, are being outsourced to "efficient machines" and "assembly lines" in U.S.? I can put figure on something here. India is looking to buy about 20 Boeing planes from united states. U.S. congressmen are lobbying real hard (to beat AirBus) because it will generate the business of $4 Billion and 47,000 jobs. This is peanuts compared to tech support jobs. From economic point of view I would say "outsourcing" is a "win-win" situation. Unfortunately, US is not feeling benefits of "outsourcing" because of its CEOs. Has anyone bothered to ask why they deserve such a huge pay rises? Perhaps, US should fix their CEOs..first to realize benefits of outsourcing than to harp about fear of loosing their jobs!

  14. Re:moon race? nah... by Brahmastra · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This ICBM nonsense seems to be floating all over the place. Only a bloody idiot would use a cryogenic engine for an ICBM. You don't need to build a god damned geostationery satellite launch vehicle to build an ICBM. India's Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle which has been operational for many years now can easily be converted to an operational ICBM. Cryogenic engines just add the need for a lot more ground facilities for a launch. There just isn't a need for an ICBM since China and Pakistan are right next door to India. The attitude seems to be.. "oh India's launching satellites? It must be for something bad." Get over it assholes.

  15. Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when you've got to the Moon, what challenge can you honestly say is too big to even attempt?

    World peace?

    1. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can actually be done pretty easily, it's even easier than going to the Moon. The real difficulty lies in doing it without killing all the mankind.

  16. I, for one by Gothmolly · · Score: 3, Funny

    welcome our new cryogenic Indian overlords.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:I, for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always trying to curry favor, aren't you?

    2. Re:I, for one by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      welcome our new cryogenic Indian overlords.

      KHAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!!!

      I don't! ;- )

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  17. Re:moon race? nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, i remember that. At the same time me and some guys here in Europe received a permission signed by Reagan himself to be able to shit after midnight. China and India will probably do like we did before the authorization. They will put a cork and shut-up, as we were scared senseless.

  18. great news! by davejenkins · · Score: 4, Interesting

    prices for thowing things into orbit will only come down when there is some straightforward competition. It is good to see more players in the field, and it is good to see various technologies tried-- I doubt this is the most efficient, but let them give it a shot.

    Rocketry is yes-- rocket science-- but certainly within the grasp of "second tier" tech nations like China, India, Brazil, and Korea.

    1. Re:great news! by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Brazil isn't there yet, the latest attempt (about 3-4 months) ago blew up on the pad during a countdown rehearsal. That accident killed a number of scientists and trained workers and set them back a bit. When India and China get the high reliability rockets sure as the ones the Russians, US and France have then we'll have true competition. I guess in a few years we'll see Rocket Scientist jobs outsourced to Inida ;) I'm all for cheaper access to space provided by commercial enterprises if that means we can now turn our attention and research $$ to Mars and beyond.

    2. Re:great news! by suitti · · Score: 2, Interesting
      We have straitforward competition already, more or less. Arian, Proton, H2, Long March, Taurus, Pegasus, Titan, Atlas, Delta, Shuttle, etc.

      Lots of countries restrict export of payloads, leading to restriction of competition.

      One problem is that there aren't enough paying payloads to support these launchers.

      The biggest lifters, Saturn V and Energia have been discontinued - despite economy of scale. The shuttle has enjoyed continued funding despite high cost. The ISS would have been MUCH cheaper if lifted by Saturn V or Energia.

      Also canceled were X-15 and Dyna-Soar concepts. The X-15 made it to sub-orbital space flight.

      Development of a new rocket is difficult and expensive. The N1 never successfully flew. It's not because the Russians couldn't build rockets. When we talk about something that's difficult, we call it "rocket science" (it's really technology - rocket engineering).

      Several inovative projects have been aborted due to costs, risks or technical difficulty. Some of these promise cheaper rides. We don't have a way of optimizing the funding of projects in a way that ensures success.

      A case in point. The National Aerospace Plane project was canceled due to cost and/or technical difficulties. EELV expects modest gains, and funds two launcher families. One project accepts high risks and fails, the other accpets low risks, and double spends to ensure that if one launcher fails, that there is still a capabile indiginous launcher available. The EELV project could not accept higher risk within cost bounds.

      --
      -- Stephen.
  19. Re:moon race? nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets also be realistic here; the only place India would want to hit with an ICBM is Pakistan, and they already have more conventional rockets which are plenty capable of doing that.

    This rocket is just because they can, and no doubt also an attempt to attract international investment. After all, this is a great adverstisment for the education standards of your workforce if you're able to achieve complex technological goals like this.

  20. why the shift? by mikeee · · Score: 1, Troll

    Same reason the US did such a useless thing, to keep up with the communists (Chinese, in this case).

    It wasn't all that long ago China and India fought a small border war; their relations are not particularly friendly.

    1. Re:why the shift? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget that a feature rich satellite and launch can bring in hundreds of millions if not a cool billion dollar payday.

    2. Re:why the shift? by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Same reason the US did such a useless thing

      Excuse me, but are you referring to the Apollo program as "useless"? If so, you are a fool.

      In terms of long-term scientific and technological returns, the Apollo program in particular, and NASA in general have been some of the most well-spent gummint dollars in history.

      It is also very hard to put a value on even one smart child who is inspired to do something great. I have never seen anything more inspirational in my life than the first man setting foot on the moon.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    3. Re:why the shift? by synergy3000 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you best read the world news sometime? India-China relations are much much warmer than they used to be. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=ind ia+china&btnG=Search+News

    4. Re:why the shift? by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Compare the benifit of Apollo to the benifit from spending all those dollars in some other way. Of course this can only be done in fiction, but I maintain that those dollars would have been more productive spent elsewhere.

    5. Re:why the shift? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never seen anything more inspirational in my life than the first man setting foot on the moon.

      Yeah, there were a lot of movies I watched in my youth that did the same thing for me.

    6. Re:why the shift? by whorfin · · Score: 1

      Yes, like on Farm Subsidies or prosecuting and jailing victimless 'social crimes' like prostitution and dope smoking.

      --
      Laugh while you can, monkey-boy!
    7. Re:why the shift? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      The interesting thing here is that both China and India have communist economies AFAIK. India was the Soviets best arms client for a long time and still is Russia's best arms client.

      The difference is India is a real democracy, with real elections and so on. China on the other hand is a Soviet like Oligarchy.

    8. Re:why the shift? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, like on Farm Subsidies or prosecuting and jailing victimless 'social crimes' like prostitution and dope smoking.

      What has welfare cost, total, compared with NASA? Which has provided more social benefit?

      Slam dunk.

    9. Re:why the shift? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Ok, where?

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  21. India and Pakistan walk into a bar... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Funny

    I: We will be having giant-sized moon rocket now.

    P: You think you are becoming big shot with moon rocket now?

    I: We are becoming superpower now.

    P: You are not now.

    I: We are too now.

    P: We will be building bigger rocket now.

    I: You are not now.

    O: We are too now.

    I: All of your bases are belonging to us now.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:India and Pakistan walk into a bar... by KoolDude · · Score: 1


      P: We will be building bigger rocket now.

      I: You are not now.

      O: We are too now.


      I for India, P for Pakistan, O for... Osama ?

      --
      getSexySig(); /* returns sexy signature */
    2. Re:India and Pakistan walk into a bar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The great equalizer throws that perception out the window. The great equalizer is free. The great equalizer only needs time. The great equalizer is a when, not if, and maybe even now. You cannot protect yourself. Nobody can protect you from the great equalizer. You have nobody to blame but yourself. I have nobody to blame but you. Realize you lost and save us all.

  22. Astronauts ? ... by cheekymonkey_68 · · Score: 1

    Maybe this will increase the chances of NASA outsourcing their Astronauts to India ;)

  23. Re:Less then credible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intent and result. Without a doubt.

    Kinda like firing a gun into a crowd of people.

  24. Phase 2: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, hope (in India) our Apu pimping overloards welcome you!

    1. Re:Phase 2: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just give up now that's so pathetically not funny

  25. Re:OH, COME ON MODS... MOD PARENT FUNNY!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They had a sense of humor once. But, much like Chris Farley, it died.

  26. A rimshot for me an my friend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I don't know about the 'pun', but you certainly put the 'jab' in 'punjab'.

  27. Cool! by Tim · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now we can outsource our space program!

    --
    Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
    1. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lockheed launches rockets in China, and import Russian made Proton rockets. Boeing is trying to get their sea launch program going.

      Been done. Lockheed even provided technical assistance that happens to improve the reliability of chinese ICBM's. Which they might find useful if they decide to invade Taiwan.

    2. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if they wrote the guidance software in India, we may have a quick solution to the H1-B problem.

    3. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHA That made me laugh thanks!!

  28. Re:The exciting problems take precedence. by sujan · · Score: 0

    That is utter bullshit.

    Indian constitution doesn't promote caste system. Other than that, I leave it to you, oh mighty sage, to educate those people who promote caste system.

    May the beam be with you!

  29. And yet another competitor enters the race. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The change is kinda interesting. Countries pouring their resources into science and exploration instead of another arms race (but it only takes one nation to start the whole thing again and if it happens there will be several players).

    Spin offs include environmental technologies which never would have been developed. Smarter more exotic materials. Massive raw protein potential. Getting things to mars or even low earth orbit is alot easier from the moon then from earth. so on, so forth, etc.

  30. ICBM ??? by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not unless they want an incredibly slow to prepare and obvious missile fleet.

    The problem with cryogenic fueled rocket engines is that you have to fuel them before you fire them. Filling a missile fleet with LOX takes time and if anyone notices gives them ample opportunity to preemptively strike.

    1. Re:ICBM ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, thats why the US keeps them in silo's underground. If India digging a lot of holes, then perhaps this is "dual use"? I suppose if they have an ICBM that they could threaten to nuke the USA if we don't outsource more software work to them ;)

    2. Re:ICBM ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The U.S. missile fleet is all solid fueled. So is the Russian fleet. Even the boomers carry solid fueled missiles. You want to try and fuel missiles in a hardened silo ? Good luck

    3. Re:ICBM ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to get things straight, the russian ICBM's all use storable, but liquid propellant. The to components are usually dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide

    4. Re:ICBM ??? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The USA did it for years with the Titan ICBM. I work with a guy who commanded a silo, and they used LOX and Nitrogen Tetroxide as fuel. He knew the folks who were killed in the explosion of a Titan in it's silo in Rock, KS due to a refueling problem. The CURRENT ICBMs are all solid fueled which is obviously much safer to handle.

    5. Re:ICBM ??? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      They have solids as well. For e.g. the *very* interesting Topol-M. There are a bunch of older Soviet era solid rockets as well. There are still many storable liquid propellant ICBMs and other old ICBMs in the Russian arsenal, but they are being progressively replaced by Topol-M.

    6. Re:ICBM ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must say, I have learnt something today! I had no idea there still was ongoing research into ICMB's on the scale which are mentioned in your link. And it seems you are totally correct wrt. the solid fueled ballistics missiles of the russians

    7. Re:ICBM ??? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Some more technical data on Topol-M.

      The interesting thing is that, as the Russians plug the holes in their nuke shield, the USA dismisses its equivalent deterrent. The Peacekeeper. This is a large MIRV missile which was forbidden under later treaties. But ever since the USA stepped down from the ABM treaty, Russia has threatened to develop MIRV versions of Topol-M. Hence the USA is dismissing its most recent deterrent. Which by the way, is less survivable than Topol-M since it is only silo-based. The railroad version was never put into use AFAIK. Topol-M is silo, railroad and road based. It has more survivability because the bases are mobile.

      Topol-M also features a maneuverable warhead to evade anti-missile systems by presenting a non-ballistic terminal trajectory.

      The Russians also have better anti-missile systems in the shape of the S-400 Triumf. Some of their anti-missile systems can also be fitted with tactical nuclear warheads to ensure a better kill ratio.

      This means the USA's nuclear deterrent now mostly consists of the submarine launched nukes (i.e. Trident).

    8. Re:ICBM ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of a bitch when you try to pop off and the sub sitting five miles off your coast fires first.

    9. Re:ICBM ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mutually assured destruction my friend.

      Mutually assured destruction.

  31. The government should try to solve that problem... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Troll

    It's utterly true. The Indian constitution tries to dismantle the caste system. However, the caste system still is a huge problem in India. The government should try to solve that problem rather than make cryogenic rockets, in my opinion.

  32. If I had mod points... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

    ... I would mod that post as "Sad but true".

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  33. Re:moon race? nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhhh this is outer space, the US has no claim over whether or not anyone can go, nor is their permission needed. The moon even LESS so

  34. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi

    India has caste problem, sexism, poverty and all that but claiming that all those should be completely solved before India even talks about space is not a bright practical idea

    Regards
    Rahul

  35. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The government should try to solve that problem rather than make cryogenic rockets, in my opinion.

    How about:
    The government should try to solve that problem AND make cryogenic rockets.

  36. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by sujan · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Thats why, pack up, go there and educate those people.

    Yeah, according to you, close all those schools that are doing these researches, maybe even stop educating people, and somehow do this magic trick that will make the caste system go away.

    How will the government 'dismantle' caste system?

  37. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You mean... like the way the US should try to develop humanity and understanding, instead of launching phony wars for political and economic gain? ;)

    We've all got our issues, but progress is still progress.

  38. Why just Pakistan? by bj8rn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    India has the second largest population in the world. They have nuclear weapons and are capable of building ICBM-s to carry those nukes. Now, why in the world should Pakistan be the only place they want to hit with those nukes, if they have the means to for more? Why not take on China or the Muslim world? I think the rocket is a way of showing the rest of the world that India is a player, too.

    --
    Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    1. Re:Why just Pakistan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because immediate India's security concerns are completely defined in one word: Pakistan. All right, we got beaten by China once and we do not want that happen. India is a peace loving country and we do not want to start a war with anyone unless forced on us. And thankfully, we have pretty good relations with the Muslim world. Muslim world is not as bad as America wants to think it is.

    2. Re:Why just Pakistan? by bj8rn · · Score: 3, Informative
      I wasn't saying that India would want to attack those all those other countries. I was just saying that by showing that they have the capability to do some real harm to others, India would gain more influence in the world. Which would keep others from messing with them.


      As for being peace-loving, that's what everybody says themselves to be.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:Why just Pakistan? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Um, no thanks. I seriously doubt that India would want to nuke someone so close to them. Ever hear of nuclear fallout?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    4. Re:Why just Pakistan? by bj8rn · · Score: 1

      Oh, why didn't I preview the bloody post... As I have already said, I don't think they are planning to nuke anyone (unless you count nuclear tests as nuking yourself). It's just showing that you have the technology to build long range missiles. And as Pakistan is a neighbouring country, it is more a message to the rest of the world.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    5. Re:Why just Pakistan? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And so here we are in the United States, where the "world is now safe for democracy" since the U.S.S.R. collapsed under its own weight almost twenty years ago. After the end of the Cold War, it was felt that the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction, the cornerstone of American politico-military relations with Russia since the Communists acquired the Hydrogen Bomb, was obsolete. Of course, the same thing was said about war after World War I. And World War II. And probably we'll say the same thing after World War III should any of us survive it.

      The ONLY reason nuclear war didn't break out during those years was because a. we'd have volatilized them and b. the Russians were never quite sure their equipment would actually work. Furthermore, they knew that we were highly unlikely to ever fire the first shot.

      Fast-forward to the present. Pakistan has atom bombs (only fission weapons at this point, I understand), India either does or isn't far behind and China most likely does but probably wouldn't admit it yet. Both India and China either have or are developing long range or spaced-based weapons delivery platforms. And no-one knows what the various terrorist groups out there are capable of now that they've had access to technology and technologists from the former Soviet Union, plus whatever they've managed to steal from us.

      Given the political and economic instability of the Middle East and the Orient, I have no doubt that any of the major "peace loving" players would be perfectly capable of firing that first shot. And when that happens, having that many nuclear-armed "friends" in the same region will be unfortunate for all concerned.

      All this tells me that the human race is, collectively, a slow learner. After all the criticism we took from the rest of the world over forty years of the Cold War, the rest of you fools are pursuing the same MAD course. May it serve you well. Just leave us the hell out of it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Why just Pakistan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muslim world is not as bad as America wants to think it is.

      I have a friend whose son was killed because he converted away from Islam. You'll let us know when the Muslim world allows freedom of religion and stops the excreable practice of dhimmitude, won't you?

    7. Re:Why just Pakistan? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      India has nukes. I think they even did nuclear tests.

      China has the nukes and the means to deliver them for a long time. Search for info on the DF-4 family (liquid toxic fuels). They are also in the process of mass-producing a new generation of ICBMs and IRBMs (solid fuels). These are for submarines, road/train vehicles and silos.

    8. Re:Why just Pakistan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All right, Middle East has been unstable etc. It has been like that for a while. But that is their problem and not India's. It is not India's business to interfere in their affairs. India has no moral right to interfere in

    9. Re:Why just Pakistan? by lommer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wow, the historical ignorance displayed in this post is astounding:

      The ONLY reason nuclear war didn't break out during those years was because a. we'd have volatilized them and b. the Russians were never quite sure their equipment would actually work. Furthermore, they knew that we were highly unlikely to ever fire the first shot.

      Please post some sources for this opinion - it's highly unconventional and conflicts with the generally accepted historical view. The Russians were actually fairly confident in their missile capability, and as much as the states yould have "volatized" them, they would have volatized us. The reason nuclear war didn't break out was because of the principal of MAD, which you cite in your introduction but clearly don't seem to understand.

      Pakistan has atom bombs (only fission weapons at this point, I understand), India either does or isn't far behind and China most likely does but probably wouldn't admit it yet.

      For your information, China has had nukes and openly admitted it since 1964, and has had intercontinental capability since not-long-after. India tested a civilian nuclear device in 1974, and then detonated both fission AND fusion bombs in 1998. Pakistan detonated their fission bomb in response.

      Given the political and economic instability of the Middle East and the Orient, I have no doubt that any of the major "peace loving" players would be perfectly capable of firing that first shot.

      None of the nations you have cited are the most likely perpetrator of the first shot in that scenario - Isreal is (They have nukes, but won't admit it). In fact the closest this world has ever come to nuclear war was not the Cuban missile crisis (as most Americans would like to believe), but the Yom Kippur War. Had Isreal not been able to reverse their apalling rout with an emergency infusion of US arms, this world would have seen nukes flying in the middle east.

      Please, go take a 20th century history course or do some reading before you start spouting off unfounded opinions on slashdot. Most slashdot posts have at least some (tenuous) grounding in reality.

    10. Re:Why just Pakistan? by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Odds are the next country to use nuclear weapons will be the same country that first and last used them, the U.S. The Bush administration has decided it would be a good idea to develop new, small, tacticial nukes to use on bunkers and have managed to fund it. Many in Congress are appalled and put constraints on the funding, R&D only, as well as a stipulation that Congress has to authorize deployment of these weapons. But once the ball gets rolling in a government that favors preemptive warfare you have to wonder...

      Technicly nukes would be a great choice for busting bunkers but the obvious danger is that once you make it acceptable to use little nukes it will be a lot more palatable to use big ones and to use them to solve more problems.

      Its so ironic to see U.S. politicians rail against WMD's when its fact the U.S. always has been and continues to be in the forefront of developing and using them. Many of the nuclear documents found in Iraq were from the Eisenhower administration's "Atoms for Peace" program and were definitely dual use. And, of course, the U.S.was actively supporting Iraq when Saddam began using using chemical weapons. At the time time we were using him a as a proxy to wage war against Iran and fundementalist Islam. Iran was in danger of winning the war by using human wave attacks of young boys to overrun Iraq's trenches. We almost certainly encouraged or turned a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons to stave off these attacks and certainly did supply Iraq with precursors for chemical and biological weapons, anthrax in particular. We also supplied them with cluster bombs from Chile to use against these human waves. Some of the key players at the time VP George H.W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld.

      You can't really blame countries for wanting nukes and missiles. Its one of the few methods for insuring the U.S. and everyone elese doesn't f**k with you.

      --
      @de_machina
    11. Re:Why just Pakistan? by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      You just missed a number of facts.

      1) The Russians would have volatilized you too, you might want to check what their nuclear arsenal looked like, you'll be surprised
      2) India already has nuclear weapons and proved it
      3) China has nuclear weapons since more than 20 years
      4) These 3 countries don't really give a damn about what's happening in the Middle East, they're not involved at any level and have never been in any of the previous middle eastern wars.

      India and Pakistan have been on brink of war last year with hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the border of each side, and nothing happened. Nobody wants to fire a nuclear weapon simply because they don't want to face the nuclear reprisals.

  39. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insightful!

  40. Re:not the moon by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
    not to mention the huge boost to national self-esteem
    As if The Greatest Nation On Earth needed that!
  41. Re:not the moon by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 4, Informative
    when you've got to the Moon, what challenge can you honestly say is too big to even attempt?

    Hmm, let me see, from India's perspective , the bigger challanges are ....

    Poverty :- The country's wealth is divided by the 90-10 rule. i.e. 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.
    Illiteracy :- More than 50%. And since being literate means being able to sign your name, the actual figures could be as high as 70-75%
    Rampant Political/Economical and Social Corruption :- Forget the politicians , I can't get my mail if I don't tip my postman.
    Infrastructure :- One of the world's worst . So much Red tape everywhere.
    Transportation and Safety :- Barring major cities, public transport is a mess and not every one can afford their own vehicle. Road/Rail accidents account for most no. of deaths in the country.
    Disaster Recovery:- No set plans and procedures for natural disaster recovery from floods , famines, fires etc. People are left at the mercy of nature and rehabilitation is a joke.

    I am not a westerner trying to judge india, I am an indian , humbly pointing out what our top priorities should be.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  42. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't they do both?? It's not as if doing one precludes doing the other.

  43. Re:not the moon by mntgomery · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the benefits of the first Quik-E-Mart on the ISS!

    --

    This comment was generated by a squadron of trained super elite albino ninja chickens for you.
  44. Go India! by jafiwam · · Score: 0

    Hey, come on... put a large number of talented people in a large economy with a culture valuing education and industriousness and you need to expect them to excel at stuff like this.

    Though I am a little confused as to why they would focus on cryogenic engines rather than the other way... ignoring a valuable natural resource and all. They should have made a curry engine instead, which has way more lifting power than a LOX and H engine could ever have if what it does to my gut is any idication...

    1. Re:Go India! by Vitus+Wagner · · Score: 1

      Next time you'll be eating rice try to pour little
      LH2 there. You'll see it has much more effect than curry.

  45. Race to the Moon? What? by AsnFkr · · Score: 1

    I coulda swore that we already won that one. I guess it's true, don't belive what you learn in school these days.

    1. Re:Race to the Moon? What? by ticklish2day · · Score: 1

      That wasn't a race, bud - that was merely the sneak preview! ;)

    2. Re:Race to the Moon? What? by AnonymousNoMore · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling that the USA landing on the moon will, in a few decades, be compared to the Vikings landing in North America. Sure they landed first, but it wasn't them who established lasting colonies (or a lasting invasion, depending on your ancestry).

      I'm glad Bush has announced a new initiative for the US to return to the moon. We've pretty much run out of places that we haven't already bombed on this planet.

    3. Re:Race to the Moon? What? by bonzomcgrue · · Score: 1

      New game! Go!

    4. Re:Race to the Moon? What? by Doc+Squidly · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm suprise you haven't been modded as troll or flamebait by some liberal moderator.

      --
      I think I think, therefore I think I am.
  46. volatile != explosive by Euler · · Score: 2, Informative
    From the article:
    "A cryogenic missile cannot be fired at a moment's notice. The fuel cannot be stored in a rocket indefinitely because it is highly explosive, so a missile would have to be fueled before launching."
    Huh?! Cryogenic fuels are volatile, meaning the fuel will eventually all evaporate. But not explosive while just sitting in the tank.
    Volatile does not mean explosive!
  47. India's moon mission by metamatic · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now all they need is a spinach farm the size of Jupiter, and they'll be able to corner the market in green cheese palak paneer.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  48. Re:moon race? nah... by rbbs · · Score: 1

    Call me pedantic but, you don't fire Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles at neighbouring countries...

  49. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like the way the US should try to develop humanity and understanding

    Whatever, if the US doesn't do anything then they are blamed for letting others suffer. If they do something then they are blamed for causing havoc.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    Fuck off.

  50. Re:moon race? nah... by satyap · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This rocket is just because they can, and no doubt also an attempt to attract international investment. After all, this is a great adverstisment for the education standards of your workforce if you're able to achieve complex technological goals like this.
    After all, that's the same reason why NASA exists.
  51. Light the flames by psylent · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ok, let's look at this one bullet at a time
    1. How come no one has started talking about feeding the poor and increasing literacy levels? They have? Oh look, ye wise learned ones. Do you think that space research is only to leave the surface with just adventure in mind? Satellites beam educational programmes to community televisions. They map our natural resources and planners can optimize utilization. It is a society very different from other countries so accept it. There is no benefit measuring other cultures using the same yardstick. It works for us, be happy. There are deficiencies in our society too and corrective programmes have a lot of inertia.
    2. The caste system is officially abolished. It worked for the society at one point of time as described in the "Laws of Manu" (yes our history goes back quite a bit, might not be very well documented but good enough for scholars to study) and it doesnt work in today's society and we try to adapt. Politicians exploit this issue too like all other issues to line their pocket but lets not discuss politics. Women always had freedom in our society, the issues of sati and purdah were because of influences on society due to twists and turns of history, I am not (and maybe most of you are not) historians and we do not have the expertise of analysing this in detail. What is more interesting is the reverse backlash that is taking place. Some communities that have traditionally been oppressed had been assigned quotas (supposed to be in place for a few decades) to raise the average level. This worked for sometime however currently I feel that this is going overboard. Once a structure is in place, it is very difficult to dismantle it (eg: the USA is supposed to be free of racial hatred, dude I am an Indian living here in the US and I know how much of that is true).
    3. Most of you would just link India to outsourcing and look at this forum as a sounding board for your pent up frustration. If it works to calm you down then it is good for you. This is slashdot, I realise that it is highly US centric. This is a byproduct of capitalism so I have nothing to add. I dont like it either when people lose jobs here and jobs are shipped to other countries. Solution I can propose before I go and grab breakfast: add value to what you are doing, it will help (doesnt sound right, does it?).
    1. Re:Light the flames by dieresis · · Score: 1

      I think you are being a bit overoptimistic on point 2.

      Caste discrimination has certainly been illegal since independence. The same can be said of the U.S. caste system, since 1965. The Indian caste system only "worked" in the sense that slavery "worked" for the U.S. The everyday reality of caste in both countries continues to differ markedly from the legal mandates. For examples, the following links:

      Torture of children in Mississippi
      http://www.bolivarcom.com/NF/omf/boli var/opinion_s tory.html?[rkey=0015834+[cr=gdn
      http://www.npr.or g/features/feature.php?wfId=15345 07 (audio)

      Caste war escalates in Bihar
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/79472 4.stm

      As for the status of women, certainly there are changes all the time, but in most areas of India patriarchy has reigned for thousands of years. Certainly, the preference for male children if anything should indicate so. Pardah isn't much of an issue and sati even less so (though it's not entirely unknown), but dowry murders (often by fire) are too common to ignore.

      http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?cont en t_id=24405

  52. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by satyap · · Score: 1
    However, the caste system still is a huge problem in India. The government should try to solve that problem rather than make cryogenic rockets, in my opinion.
    Yes, because governments can only do one thing at a time, right?
  53. Re:not the moon by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    I was thinking the same thing. But the wheels have been put in motion. At this point it's more productive to make sure things work smoothly.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  54. Re:not the moon by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I am not a westerner trying to judge india, I am an indian , humbly pointing out what our top priorities should be.

    I am a westerner and will now judge india in a burst of hubris:
    I think India should also work on its leprosy poblem...and the plague.

    Seriously, for a country to simultaniously have atomic weapons and diseases from the middle ages...that's scary.

    Then again, there's been an increase in syphilis in the states lately...that's more 19th century than middle ages, but nobody's perfect.

    /rant

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  55. India is a SURE Winner !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i read the views and reviews but all seem to forget one thing that, yes there is competition building up, the technology what USA flaunts of comes from indian brains cos more than 30% ppl working in NASA are indians, now as such some one said dell technical support centre on moon, oh boy, yer country or where you are, don't av the technical people or you people simply know how to write but dun know the technology behind it, thus comes india, the support, the back bone, the life support, it's cheap and efficeint, not far are the days when India will have sanctions on USA and then we would seek answers and replies, and then someone was talking about ICBM, lol, dun ya guys need a refresher course, poor you, i mean yes, true, you guys truly need an insight into what actually India aims at, and what it will acheive, the technology is developed however or howsoever, isn't it ironic that whatever someone else achieves is subject to criticism, cus you people do know USA for that mattter does not have anything of itself, but hired people and money.. agree or not, loosers will admire USA .. but INDIA as such has it's head up held high .. slow and steady .. getting in . competing and is a SURE WINNER

    1. Re:India is a SURE Winner !! by lordjake · · Score: 1

      No offence, but India has a lot of problems to deal with before they can become the next superpower. Their economy is far behind the United States, western Europe, and Japan in size, even though its population is much larger (over a billion now). This would be why a large fraction of the population is still dependent upon substinence agriculture (growing their own food just to feed themselves). Like a lot of people have said, this is why India should feel obligated to deal with their own problems before dealing with space research. More importantly as far as superpower status is concerned, this means they don't have the massive economic might of the United States, or China, or the Soviet Union like it was twenty years ago. And also, despite the fact that NASA employs a lot of Indian people, and Dell bases its tech support there, the fact remains that India isn't nearly as technologically advanced as the United States or Russia are. So I'm sorry to say it- it would be way cool, but India is not yet completed its ascendance to technical supremacy...

  56. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what are you stupid ?

    if the government waits till society is perfect before undertaking any scientific projects, it will wait forever.

    or perhaps you forget that the US was working on the Apollo project in the 50's when segregation was still legal in the south ? perhaps you should have waited to solve your racial problems before "wasting" money on trying to go to the moon

  57. Re:moon race? nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh yeah, which is my point. This isn't an ICBM, and they already have non-ICBM missiles quite capable of hitting Pakistan. This rocket is not intended to deliver any weaponised warheads.

  58. Re:My wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your god doesn't exist.

  59. Yeah, Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck getting a ship to the moon using spaghetti code with no comments and no error checking.

  60. Re:What I want for Xmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea...Americans are good people like Texans...

    Punjab is a state...HONKIE.

  61. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem it is a culture my friend. For every problem government wont solve the problem and indeed if it is upto politicians they exploit Caste System to enrich themselves.trust me in elections in lot of places the contestants are chosen basis of caste So change has to occur in ppl then change will be seen in the overlords too

  62. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by oudzeeman · · Score: 1

    Hey, I went to college with a Rahul... Do you work for Ebay?

  63. Re:Kill the Indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would Pakinstan just nuke those sorry motherfuckers already?

  64. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's about 40 Rahuls where I work, plus 30 Srinivas, 50 Sandeep's, and about 3 dozen with the last name asifgh'eghiwieghw'eighnwoeignwnegoi.

    I thought Matthew was a common American name ... but when I started working at a supposed American company, the above is what I discovered. I sincerely hope it bites them in the ass.

  65. all the best by jdkane · · Score: 1
    or build intercontinental ballistic missiles'

    I love the fact that we had to throw in an obligatory terrorism threat. Ah, the mind-set of the public....

    Anyway, more power to them. I think everybody should have an equal chance to go into space.

  66. Re:moon race? nah... by ikeleib · · Score: 1

    Of course, they do have a lingering border dispute with China as well.

    Distance between New Delhi and Islamabad: 406 miles (653 km)

    Distance between New Delhi and Beijing: 2341 miles (3768 km)

    None of the USA's current fleet of ICBM's (AFAIK) use cryogenic motors for their primary stages. However, previous generations certianly did, (Redstone, Titan, etc)

    Although this rocket may very well be intended for civilian or commercial service, I think that it is also to demonstrate to the world India's continued development of rocket systems, keeping in the audience's mind that they can put increasingly large nuclear payloads increasingly farther away.

  67. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by andhravodu · · Score: 1

    I am tired of hearing about rectifying the caste problem. Applying an analogy, the caste system can be compared with racism in US. You know its abolished but you can find it every creepy corner. Get what I mean?

  68. Re:not the moon by thapasya · · Score: 1

    You should read more on how the world works. Do you think the developed nations are any different. A very small percentage of people control very large percentage of stock market

  69. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Zibblsnrt · · Score: 1
    It's utterly true. The Indian constitution tries to dismantle the caste system. However, the caste system still is a huge problem in India. The government should try to solve that problem rather than make cryogenic rockets, in my opinion.

    ...Because, of course, the Indian government is a single, monolithic, insectlike entity, and is only able to perform one single task at any given time to the absolute exclusion of all other functions.

    Riiight.

    --
    "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
  70. Re:not the moon by justins · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Poverty :- The country's wealth is divided by the 90-10 rule. i.e. 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.

    Wow! If that's your definition of a serious poverty problem we'd better get to work fixing America, too.
    --
    Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  71. Korolev and the leaking oxygen line by Latent+Heat · · Score: 3, Funny
    James Harford's "Korolev" talks about how Korolev held out for a kerosene-LOX (cryogenic usually means LH2, but LOX is cryogenic enough) ICBM while everyone else wanted to go with the storable UDMH-N2O4 fueled rocket, which Korolev disliked for the very corrosive and toxic chemicals, and which resulted in a horrific accident in which Nedelin, the military guy in charge of ICBM's and many workers died.

    Anyway, how do you keep a kerosene-LOX rocket on the pad on any kind of alert status (i.e. able to launch in some time less than several days of prep)? The idea was to keep it plugged in to a supply of LOX so as LOX boils off, you pump in more. In a test, they had a leak on a LOX feed line to the rocket, so one of the technicians, like, whipped it out and took aim at the leak -- that froze over and plugged the leak. I work with a fellow whose favorite expression is "running around peeing on all of those problems" and here is where someone did it for real.

  72. Re:not the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, looks you are more the Dawood or the Mafia Muslims in Dubai. Guess your say would be "instead of sending a satellite to the moon, send a missile to the developed nations - you could bring them in par with you"

  73. Re:moon race? nah... by bluGill · · Score: 1

    IIRC, Inda's public statements are to the effect that they are more worried about China than Pakistan. Sure the war with Pakistan is hotter, but in the end they claim to see Pakistan as a threat they can deal with, without using nukes. China is a much harder threat to deal with. Pakistan has said essentially the same thing: China is a bigger threat than India.

    Having talked to a few people from each of the above I'd agree. The Chinese are used to being brainwashed and controled in some areas that makes in very easy for their government to attack suddenly, and their large population gives them a good chance of winning by attrition. (though India might stand up do that if their defense is good, it isn't likely it would be used)

  74. Nobody is going to build a cyrogenic ICBM by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The US tried that in the 1950s. Atlas ICBMs were deployed from 1969 to 1965, but those missiles were replaced with solid fuel ICBMs as soon as it was possible to do so. Atlas boosters are still used as launchers, but their ICBM career was short.

    Cyrogenic ICBMs are first-strike weapons. It takes so long to prep and fuel them that they're useless as a retaliation weapon. The opposition's ICBMs will land on your silos first. Keeping a cyrogenic system at a high state of readiness for years on end is difficult.

    The Cuban missile crisis is sometimes said to have occured because the US put cyrogenic ICBMs in Turkey, aimed at the Soviet Union. That looked like the US was planning a first strike on Moscow. The Soviet Union had to respond to that threat.

    (Decades later, interviews with the Soviet officials who made that decision revealed that most of them didn't look at it that way, but that's another issue. The communication-by-strategic-threat thing never worked as some of the gurus of deterrence thought it did. The most famous example of such miscommunication was that Kennedy's advisers thought the Soviet missile base in Cuba was deliberately laid out just like the ones in Russia so that the US would recognize it as a threat. Years later, the Red Army colonel in charge of building the base was asked about this, and said "No, we just did it that way because that's what the field manual said to do." All the military personnel present nodded in understanding.)

    So it's a launcher, not an ICBM.

    1. Re:Nobody is going to build a cyrogenic ICBM by lommer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, there is significant evidence that points to the American deployment of Jupiter missiles in Turkey as the cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kruschev never publicly admitted it, and frequently gave multiple different vague reasons for the USSR's nuclear involvement in Cuba. Years after the crisis, it was revealed that in order to get the Russians to back down, Kennedy agreed to remove the missiles from turkey within a year or two. This was one of the Russian's chief demands, but Kennedy insisted that it not be publicly revealed so that he could be seen as a public hero who was tough on the Russians for the upcoming election.

      The other leading cause for the Cuban Missile Crisis was the missile gap. A number of other factors definitely contributed, so much so that there isn't really historical agreement on the subject at all.

    2. Re:Nobody is going to build a cyrogenic ICBM by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      Another important aspect of the Cuban missile crisis is that when it came to a showdown, Fidel Castro demanded that the Russians launch the missiles against the US, which the Russians wisely refused to do.

      This is the same Fidel Castro that peaceniks the world over fawn over.

      Kennedy lost a lot in the missile crisis. In order to resolve the crisis, the US had to agree not to ever attack Cuba, and had to remove the missiles from Turkey. Russia lost only a quick attempt to emplace missiles near the US.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    3. Re:Nobody is going to build a cyrogenic ICBM by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 2, Informative
      The US tried that in the 1950s. Atlas ICBMs were deployed from 1969 to 1965, but those missiles were replaced with solid fuel ICBMs as soon as it was possible to do so. Atlas boosters are still used as launchers, but their ICBM career was short.
      Although the first generation Atlas and Titan ICBM's were phased out by 1965, the US continued to operate the liquid fuel Titan II until 1987. SAC actually introduced Titan II two years after the solid fuel Minuteman series. Although more difficult and dangerous to operate and maintain (not to mention much greater launch time), the Titan had a much greater payload than the Minuteman.
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
  75. Re:moon race? nah... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    Redstone used LOX/Alcohol so yes. The early Titans also used some cryogenics. However later Titans used storable toxic hypergolic liquid fuels. Some even had solid first stages. India already has the Agni family of missiles with solid first stage, why would they use cryogenic engines for nukes? Sure they could use it for a small batch of revenge weapons to hit China, think modified Agni family with cryogenic 3rd stage, but that would have limited use.

  76. Re:moon race? nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Professor Jonathan Vos Post here, forgot my password on /. over a year ago.

    YES! India will be in Moon-race 2: The Sequal.

    China, last month, becamse the 3rd country to put a person in orbit. Japan said "Big deal, we could have done that 20 years ago" but is actually in the race, and has been openly planning Moon Bases for 20 years (especially at Shimizu and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries).

    India will be the 4th country to put a person in space, unless Japan bothers first. The European Space SAgency (ESA) is deeply in the race. Several countries have suggested that they, too, are in the race. For instance, Pakistan (which has been playing "Escalatio" (as Tom Leher puts it) with India forever. Brazil, the space superpower of South America, will do it. Nigeria or Saudi Arabia or some other Petro-nation will do it, with a propane-oxygen or kerosine-LOX rocket.

    I know all this as I was in the Moon-base design group at Rockwell International, presenting papers at international conferences and talking with japanese, Chinese, Russian, European, and Indian "rocket scientists."

    There IS a new space race. That's part of why Emperor Bush II will announce our participation in this round either 17 Dec 2003 (Wright Bros. First Flight Centernnial) or State of the Union Address.

    Moon-race 2. This time, we stay. This time, it matters.

  77. I've seen scientific illiteracy like this before.. by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    That's it! You write scripts for Stargate: SG1, don't you?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  78. Re:not the moon by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well , its similar in some aspects and not in many. When you say poverty in USA, it's meaning could vary from living in the streets of NY, to living on minimum wage jobs, living on social security etc.

    When we say poverty in india, we mean being unable to provide oneself even with daily bread.

    There is no govt. program (at least one that works), to educate, support or at the least feed the really really poor indians. Any money generated thru welfare organizations is socked up internally by politicians and officials.

    The fast rise of Islam and Christanity in India is mainly due to FREE food provided by the mosques and churches to poor people. I am not a religiously biased person, so I am not critisizing either one, But when a religion starts to get converts because it provides free food, instead of its principals and ideologies, you start wondering about the entire system.

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  79. ha, ha, BSoD firecrackers. by twitter · · Score: 1
    An AC worries about space outsourcing:

    Lockheed even provided technical assistance that happens to improve the reliability of chinese ICBM's

    Lockheed makes great hardware, but there is no need to fear. China bought into Microsoft's Shared Source nonsense, so their ICBMs will need frequent reboots and will more than likely be disabled by some worm written by a 13 year old Samoan.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  80. Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 years? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
    India has tested 5 nuclear bombs already. China has been testing bombs for decades. And as far as who's politically capable of a first (nuclear) strike, the list goes:

    1. USA (fucking scary, but read the doc's!)
    2. (far behind) Israel
    3. (even bigger gap) India
    4. (tie) Pakistan, France, China, N. Korea

  81. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every corner ?

    Only in black neighborhoods for they are the only sizable group of racist left in this country.
    Ever been to mainstream African American web boards ?
    You would be surprised ...

  82. Re:moon race? nah... by mikerich · · Score: 1
    Lets also be realistic here; the only place India would want to hit with an ICBM is Pakistan, and they already have more conventional rockets which are plenty capable of doing that.

    Not quite. India and China have had an ongoing border dispute for many years now. The two countries view one another with suspicion and are engaged in an arms race.

    Best wishes,
    Mike.

  83. YES!! YES!! YES!! GOD is so good by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1

    Yeaharrr finally things are getting back on track, and mankind is starting to remember who and what we are, and what we are for, finally the Adventure continues....

    --
    in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
    Francis Smit
  84. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by alphakappa · · Score: 1

    The government should try to solve that problem rather than make cryogenic rockets, in my opinion.

    Rather than? Why not tackle both problems? do you think that in a country this big, with such a high pool of capable people, there'd be enough people only to tackle one problem at a time? Get down from your high chair - when the united states was preparing for their moon mission, they had enough social and economic problems of their own - you do not tackle problems one at a time - that way, you'd get to a decent level only after a million years.

    --
    "When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
  85. Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year by mesocyclone · · Score: 0

    You seem to have left out Russia, which has still has lots of deployed ICBMs (about as many as the US). Russia is more unstable than the US by orders of magnitude, and remains quite paranoid.

    Also, the issue of first strike means different things in different conditions. A fourth generation nuke (i.e. low yield, very little fallout) used as a bunker buster is a relatively insignificant event compared to a cold-war style counter-force first strike or a retaliatory anti-population strike.

    Furthermore, the political acceptability of anything other than a highly limited, low collateral damage (fourth generation) pre-emptive attack is extremely low in the US, UK and Israel. Even such a limitted attack would have enormous political repercussions in those three countries. The idea that the US is at the top of the list of those politically likely to launch an attack is absolutely insane.

    I'd give a quite different order of probabilitites:

    India - miscalculation or response to radical Islamic takeover of Pakistan.

    Pakistan - result of miscalculation or radical Islamic takeover.

    Al Qaeda - using purchased/furnished NK or Iranian (or even Russian) weapon smuggled to civilian target.

    Israel - fourth generation pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear capabilities.

    Iran - (against Israeli population centers - see this and this.) Iran and North Korea have been closely cooperating, trading Iranian money for North Korean capabilities, including long range missiles and probably nuclear weapons. Iran has its own Uranium enrichment facilities sufficient to produce weapons grade Uranium, and North Korea has a supply of Plutonium, and a Uranium enrichment program at an unknown stage of progress. Both nations have local Uranium mines. A large contingent of North Korean scientists are living in Iran, indicating that the nuclear programs may be as deeply coupled as the historic ties between the US and UK in that field.

    US, UK - fourth generation strike against deep underground targets in Iran or North Korea), or strategic retaliation against terrorist supporting regimes after an Al Qaeda nuclear attack in the US.

    NK - as part of an attempted conquest of the south, as a dying spasm of the regime, or less likely, as a response to a US pre-emptive strike against nuclear facilities and stockpiiles.

    China - either as an extension of an Indo-Pakistani conflict, or a Taiwan crisis.

    USSR (major counter-force strike against US as a result of a mistake or rogue elements in the SRF)

    France - no plausible scenario until about 2050, which it becomes Dar-al-France (Islamic dominated France).

    Note that only a few of these scenarios result in major nuclear war, and some (the fourth generation attacks) are only nominally nuclear, in that they are low yield with essentially no residual radiation.

    Also note that all of the nuclear powers probably have the capability of using Fusion boosting to create high yield weapons, and many are probably capable of fielding true two-stage thermonuclear weapons.

    Fourth generation weapons are speculative. The physics are discussed in one unclassified reference, and the recent defense spending authorization most likely funds some fourth generation research and testing. Such weapons are especially useful for bunker busters (funded) and anti-ballistic missile systems (I hope that the US ABM system is secretly using them).

    By far the most deadly threat is STILL Russia. Note that this >a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/missileers/fals ealarms.html">came close as recently as 1995 when a scientific sounding rocket, launched in the arctic, was misinterpreted by the aging Russian radar system as a sub-launched EMP first-phase attack. Yeltsin activated his football and had an estimat

    --

    The only good weather is bad weather.

  86. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You assume that we can throw a bunch of rocket scientists and a few hundred crores at the caste problem and it will go away. Look at USA in the 60s - very active in the space program and the segregation/racial attitude was sickening. It is easier to launch space missions compared to changing the perceptions and attitudes of a nation of a billion people.

  87. Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Any justification for India being on top of your list???
    You seem to be severely misinformed. India advocates the policy of no first-use of nukes. And the reason you give is flimsy because India can steam roll Pakistan in any conventional war like it did in 1965, 1971 and 1998(a small one) when Pakistan tried to invade Kashmir. The best chance of India using nukes first is if and when China invades it like it did in 1962 when India was brutalized. I would put North Korea,Pakistan, Israel before India in that list.

    Here are some links to substantiate my argument.
    link1
    link2

    This article directly nullifies your ranking of India above Pakistan
    link3

  88. Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

    One more potential use has come to my attention since I wrote the article above.

    From here we see a threatened (12/5/2002) Russian use (apparently of nuclear weapons) to destroy the population of Chechnya:

    Question: Shamil Basayev is threatening Russia with nuclear terrorism. Should we be frightened?

    Answer: If Chechen terrorists attempt to seize a nuclear power station or spread radioactive materials to pollute the air and land, it will amount to proclaiming a nuclear war on Russia. The reply will be ruthless for Chechens.
    ...

    If Chechens resort to nuclear blackmail, there will be no Chechnya to fight for.

    --

    The only good weather is bad weather.

  89. Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

    India is at the top of the list because of the instability of Pakistan. It does not mean that India is especially aggressive or desires to make such an attack.

    However, given the instability of Pakistan, it is possible that India will find it necessary to enact a counter-force strike against Pakistan for its own survival, in conditions where Pakistan is taken over by Isamic fundamentalists of a certain stripe. I do not know if such a strike is practical, however, in which case India would instead be forced to rely on nuclear deterrent by threatening (as opposed to attacking) Pakistani population centers.

    Thus India might have to strike first because it has no choice. It is not at the top of the list because it is viewed as the most aggressive, which it certainly is not. It is at the top of the list because it is in the most danger.

    Rolling over Pakistan in a conventional war would not be sufficient to remove the Pakistani nuclear capability, and in fact would almost certainly trigger a Pakistani nuclear strike, especially under the circumstances posited.

    India also needs to maintain a deterrent against China, and Pakistan acts as a Chinese proxy to some extent, having apparently received considerable nuclear aid from China. However, the likelihood of a nuclear war with China is far lower, IMHO because China is far more careful and is hence adequately deterred at this time.

    Certainly in terms of the big picture, the large power rivalry is between India and China, not India and Pakistan. But the nuclear arming of Pakistan changes the equation radically, allowing it to greatly threaten India's population centers. Combining that with the political volatility thus makes Pakistan more immediately dangerous to India than China.

    Thus, if a high probability even is the takeover of Pakistan by Islamic fundamentalists, and there are not adequate safeguards to prevent them from launching a first strike, India would be almost compelled to launch a counter-force strike - not out of aggressive intend but out of self defense. Hence its ranking on the list.

    As far as "no first use" doctrines, those go out the middle the first nanosecond after a huge threat arises which can only be neutralized with first use!

    I would not be surprised to find India working hard on fourth generation nuclear weapons for use against Pakistani nuclear facilities and also for use in theater ABM systems. If they can get them working, it allows the reduction of the Pakistani threat without crossing the true nuclear threshold (which is the use of large yield weapons which create radioactive fallout).

    --

    The only good weather is bad weather.

  90. pffft by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    forget cryogenic rockets!
    use a giant gun and a giant bullet with a man inside it and shoot it at the moon!

  91. Moon race -- it's about time for another one by AJWM · · Score: 1

    It's been 30 years since anybody went to the Moon. We're about due.

    Consider the early history of Antarctic exploration -- there was the "South Pole Race" in the 1909-1912 era (Shackleton, who didn't quite make it, then the real race between Amundsen and Scott), then essentially nothing (except for the Byrd aerial expeditions in the 30s) for about 35 years until the US Navy's Operation Highjump after WWII and then full-time permanent bases since IGY in 1957.

    I for one welcome our new Selenite overl^W^W^W^W a return to the Moon.

    --
    -- Alastair
  92. That was - racist. by 0x1337 · · Score: 0

    Nope - Punjab is a stinking third-world shithole.


    BTW - pretty courageous of you to use racial epithets while hiding behind Anonymity. Is that something they teach in Pubjabi schools? Or is that the inherent "reverse discrimination is good for diversity" nature of American publik/higher edwakation skool systems?

  93. Re:not the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of the so-called lepers are fakes who were forced to or chose to cut off body parts because they were so poor. Not like that makes it any better.

  94. Not just fireworks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Chinese rockets were used for more than entertainment. They were one of the key weapons in the Battle of Kaifeng almost 800 years ago (1232 AD).

  95. Re:That was - racist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up, nigger.

  96. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US is different type of country. It is a new country, has no historical baggage to carry. Even then the US had open racism till 1960s. Things have really improved since then for sure, but that's due to almost a quasi-revolution by young hippies who challenged the system and also due to very fast changing economy.
    Traditional countries like those in europe don't accept social changes as fast as the US.
    But I am unhappy about the Indian situation due to the fact that people are too rigid in their belief, language and customs. It will involve a lot of introspection on part of Indians to get rid of the caste problem. It will required free, individual thinking, thinking out of the box on social issues, which is very difficult in India. The communist system in China has served them well removing all the social barriers which existed at the time of revolution.

  97. ROFLMAO.... by 0x1337 · · Score: 1

    You're right - black people really care about Punjabis calling Texans "honkies."

    Thats just the sort of thing that gets the NAACP and brothas and sistahs frothing at the mouth about "da man."

    Can ya sense the sarcasm, or do I have to point it out as well?

    1. Re:ROFLMAO.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of "shut up" don't you understand, nigger?

  98. India fast turning into Nazi germany by foghorn19 · · Score: 1

    Rapid technological development, large scale persecution of minorities, impunity for perpetrators of mass crimes.

    1. Re:India fast turning into Nazi germany by base3 · · Score: 1

      Call me when they invade Poland.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  99. 20 years by ArcSecond · · Score: 1

    More like 12. Unless you are counting that period where they were the "Evil Empire" that required Star Wars in the first place. *That* would have been 20 years ago.

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    1. Re:20 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wanted to point out to you how ignorant you are. You should try to fix that.

      BTW, the "Evil Empire" referred to the USSR, and was a factual assertion.

  100. an ultra nationalistic indian...(proud of that!) by shankzz · · Score: 1

    "now that both China and India who have enough money to "play space race" they should also have the money to pay back their external debt". here's one ultra nationalistic Indian whose responses you have been waiting for... very interesting to note that you have come up with an impeccable logic. India has to pay up ALL its international debts before doing anything in their own backyard...,right!(no wonder! In a country who's premier is so logical, these things are bound to happen). so, in the same lines of reasoning, let me ask you a few questions... 1. with the crime rate in US so high, why don't you guys clear up everything there, see to it that you have 0% crime rate and all the people out there live in peace and harmony, and then come out with your international policing stuff...(big bossing all the lil countries out there, destroying a whole nation in the pretext of building up peace, etc) 2. with your economy SUPER STABLE (!) and the unemployment rate alarmingly high, ask all your countries' companies to give jobs to your people instead of running behind our INDIAN brians for anything and everything... my sincere request...first check out the dirt in your back, before cleaning up somebody else's...

  101. Re:not the moon by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

    Hmm, let me see, from India's perspective , the bigger challanges are ....

    Perhaps you wanted to say "an Indian's perspective" as opposed to "India's perspective". Surely, you don't claim to represent all of India, do you?

    Poverty :- The country's wealth is divided by the 90-10 rule. i.e. 10% of the population has 90% of the wealth.

    With all due respects, you weren't talking about poverty, but wealth distribution. The US, as a matter of fact, has a much worse wealth distribution than India; I believe the figure is more like 99-1. Or something like that; please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Point being, the great challenge for India is greater wealth creation and not just a fairer wealth distribution. Which is exactly what our new focus on science and technology will do; more investment, more jobs, greater talent.

    Illiteracy :- More than 50%. And since being literate means being able to sign your name, the actual figures could be as high as 70-75%

    In the BiMaRu cow-belt, yes. Much of the North East has a very high literacy rate (78-ish), Kerala already has 100%, TN and Karnataka's are in the 80's and 90's, and Andhra Pradesh is apparently set to achieve 100% literacy by 2005.

    Infrastructure :- One of the world's worst .

    Seen the new Pune - Mumbai highway?

    So much Red tape everywhere.

    This, by rights, is a point different from infrastructure, but again, to strike a positive note, google for "e-seva" in Andhra Pradesh.

    Transportation and Safety :- Barring major cities, public transport is a mess and not every one can afford their own vehicle. Road/Rail accidents account for most no. of deaths in the country.

    Public transport is a mess in many of the world's interior regions, but again, the breakdown is more regional than anything; Karnataka's KSRTC, for instance, has an extensive bus system, while other states have much less

    humbly pointing out what our top priorities should be.

    Indeed, this is where you and I disagree; by no stretch of anyone's imagination should we think that our scientific goals are our "national" priorities that take precedence over all the, valid I must add, problems India faces, even going by financial allocation alone. My point is that there's a lot of policy initiative and some good work done on all of the problems you've mentioned, but that we need political and, perhaps, bureaucratic, leadership to tackle them. That is to say, our social problems should not be confused with our technological goals; the first is tackled by bureaucrats and politicians, the second by scientists in their field of interest. Two different things.

    More to the point, we apparently have one of the world's largest bases of scientific talent, and for sure, we can't match salaries they'd get elsewhere. One bloddy good way of making talent stay in the country is by setting challenging technological goals and adding liberal doses (pun unintended) of patriotism to make the talent achieve them.

    But again, you are absolutely right; corruption, low literacy, bad infrastructure and so on are endemic problems, and I, for one, wish for some stronger political leadership in tackling those. (Obviously, and this is perhaps where we'll agree, while there has been some good work, I don't quite think there's enough energy being devoted, at least on a national level)

  102. You are a blind newt that didnt get better.. by Flaming+Death · · Score: 0

    How is it then, the high majority of nuclear testing is still being done by the U.S.? Why does the U.S. need to continue to poliferate if what you say is true? The only people in the WORLD to have used a nuclear weapon against anyone else are the U.S.!!!! And two of them!!! Please spare me the rhetoric about first strike. The only country I would deem MAD enough to start a nuclear strike IS the U.S. Look at Iraq, even without U.N. backing they decide to attack another nation. Thats not aggressive is it? And why the hell is the U.S. developing "new" types of nuclear weapons? What the hell have you lot learned?

    SWEET FUK ALL.

    You wonder why there is so much angst against the U.S... and look at your attitude. You dont even realise that the biggest nuclear whore and weapons maker is the U.S. itself???!!! And for what? Nuclear domination?? Where are your brains?? Dominate WHAT?!! You have a huge number of starving and dying people in your own country, and you cant seem to fix it.. and you preach to the rest of the world about the beauty of democracy and capitalism. Ho bloody ho.. I hope you sleep well in your nice house, with your nice bed, with your nice nuclear weapons, while many of your own country men and women freeze in the cold. Talk about slightly maligned priorities..

  103. Hindluna by coyotedata · · Score: 1

    First it was India and China over Assam and now!

  104. what about the US by mehtars · · Score: 1

    Although India has developed an cryogenic rocket engine, why does everyone point fingers at it being trigger happy. I mean, for comparison, look at the US- basically, they have declared more wars, and have shown interest in pursuing smaller nuclear bombs- esp to attack bunkers.

    It seems to me the americans are far more likely to pull the trigger than India.

  105. Re:an ultra nationalistic indian...(proud of that! by javiercero · · Score: 1

    I am afraid that your nationalistic blind got the best of you. You are comparing apples to oranges, but I will bite. 1. The crime rates in India are rather high too. 2. The sound logic of your government to enter an arms race with Pakistan ove a piece os sh*t land known as Kashmir. Whoah... Is the world supposed to be impressed over your handling of affairs. 3. What is the poverty level in India darling, before you come and critizise another nation's economy as "unstable" better take a look at India's economic "might"

  106. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by oudzeeman · · Score: 1
    I thought it might be a common name, but figured I'd give it a shot. I have some fond memories of drinking beer and playing gamecube with Rahul after our "Computers, Ethics, and Society" class. I don't think I've touched a gamecube since then.

    I think he had moved back to Tennessee(where his parents live) after he graduated(we went to a New England University - where I'm now a graduate student)

  107. Re:My wish by lord_nightrose · · Score: 0

    Sure He does. Read "American Gods" by Neil Gaiman. Gods are born when people believe in them, and they die when nobody does anymore. It's simple, really.

    --
    This is not part of my post. It's my signature. I bet you're disappointed.
  108. US can start by feeding and non-brutalizing blacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plaugue?? Hmmmm... shows how outdated you are.
    We did have plague like US has smallpox and Ebola.
    Try managing and feeding a billion citizens WITHOUT importing food stuffs, and i think you will appreciate how hard a work we are doing.
    US can first start off by not brutalizing its blacks, provide equal job opportunities for white and black citizens...quit Iraq.. apologize for Vietnam..
    Hmmmmm... there's a lot the US can do to make the world a safer place, instead of ranting about how india is a trigger-happy country...

  109. Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would India first-strike Pakistan if they could win without one -- and without the political fallout of using them. Especially when using them might draw China into the conflict?

    Germany and the US conducted a total war when both had toxic-gas weapons, and neither used them. Why not? Because if one side did, the other would too. It was the earlier, non-nuclear battlefield MAD.

    That said, China or Israel would probably be involved in the next war. [China either against India or the US over Taiwan and possible SK and Japan] The wildcard is Russia, who might get involved in anything nuclear if China gets involved. Russia may be the real factor in China not using a nuke aggressively. If the US or India and China got into a no-holds-barred pissing contest, Russia might well take some potshots at the smoking Chinese rubble.

  110. ROFLMWAO!!! by 0x1337 · · Score: 1

    The part where an anonymous piece of shit directs a racial slur that doesn't even apply to me towards my person.

    By your skewed logic I am a also spaghetti-code writing Indian, an Indian-nuking Paki, an industrious east/north asian in a sweatshop churning out uselss shit to fuel "western" Kapitalism, a yermulke-wearin' IDF soldier putting bullets in 9-year-olds, or a fanatic Ahab the Arab blowing up a holocaust survivor.

    Nope.... I ain't no brotha yo. Ah ain't even from da projekts - yo no whum sayin'?

    1. Re:ROFLMWAO!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're a nigger in denial, then.

  111. Re:What big News!!! ROFLMAO!!! by 0x1337 · · Score: 1

    You're right - posting useful information that has some edwuamakational content, as well as knowing what you're talking about - is definitely "Troll" behaviour.

    Boy... do I have to stoop down to the level of pointless M$ bashing, or posting goatse links to get any kind of positive moderation????

  112. Re:not the moon by Vendekkai · · Score: 1

    I am an Indian, too. Where do you guys get these stats?

    1. Wealth distribution. 90% of the _world's_ wealth is in the hands of 10% of its population. It applies for the US, too. What led to this irrelevant stat - oh, poverty. Yes poverty is a problem. But if you look at recent economic indicators, the proportion living below the poverty line has fallen from 36 per cent ten years ago to 27 per cent. That's economic empowerment for you, 90 million people (one-third of the USA population) coming over the poverty line in a decade.

    2. Illiteracy: Yes, it is a problem. The sheer numbers of people to be educated, with the resources of a developing country. But the CIA World Factbook lists literacy rates as 59.5% (not illereracy, literacy rates). Your assumption of 75% is not based on any estimate I've ever seen or experienced in real life.

    3. Corruption: Are you saying India's unique in this? Check out India's corruption ranking in Transparency International's report. India is 83 of 133. But media and public awareness of corruption is high, and occassionally something does happen to corrupt people.

    4. Infrastructure: Where do you stay? In Bangalore, I can see the visible improvements in infrastructure over the last 8 years. Granted, there is room for improvement, but there have been dramatic improvements in power, telephony, bandwidth and lifestyle infrastructure.

    5. Public Transport is a mess. May I refer you to LA? And from where do you get stats that say Road and Rail accidents cause most deaths in the country? There is absolutely no basis for this. More Indians die from heart attacks than die in all accidents.

    6. Disaster Recovery: National and State Disaster Recovery Management Centres are being built / some are operational already.

    Again, how is this relevant to the topic? Would you be able to qualtify the spinoffs that space programs generate? I've visited the ISRO Sriharikota Space Launch Centre. You'd be amazed at the way they operate - without much investments and out of pretty poor facilities, these guys have built a highly competitive launch programme. The spinoffs that have already been commercialised range from food-preservation techniques to accurate weather prediction and wait for it - disaster recovery-.

    I get extremely irritated by those wiseacres who _humbly_ point out what India's priorities should be. Any country as large and complex as India has a lot of dynamics that need to be managed in development. It is naive and simplistic to expect problems like poverty and illiteracy (which are symptoms, not illnesses, by the way), to be tackled before space research / high technology / computerization / whatever.

  113. Re:not the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I am not a westerner trying to judge india, I am
    > an indian , humbly pointing out what our top
    > priorities should be.

    From the tone of your post, definitely an "American Desi".

    I agree with most of the "challenges" you mentioned but the challenges are slowly being tackled (I bet you perceptions are based on your decade back residence in India and a 7 day visit/year to India).

    India has to develop on all fronts otherwise India may find that 10 years down the line when all the challenges have been overcome, it has been left behind on the technological front!

    -- T. Kumar

  114. Maybe not by tqft · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Strategically Pakistan is a dead end for end India - no energy resources, strategic position/commodities and lots of friends who would get angry (including 100+m people internal to India). And Pakistan can also hit back.

    Who has all this stuff that India will want and need and will be dumped by their friends if India grab for it?

    Look at a map.

    Why has India being building a blue water navy?

    Where could they go with it?

    Australia. Unless you think India wants to take on another 100+m Muslims by annexing Indonesia.

    We won't be a target for India in the next 10 years but by then India's population/resource profile is going to look a lot nastier than it is now.

    Remove tinfoil hat

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
    1. Re:Maybe not by blancolioni · · Score: 1

      Is paranoia about Indonesia getting a bit passe these days?

    2. Re:Maybe not by tqft · · Score: 1

      The theory is if Indonesia removed enough of its army from internal "policing" duties to invade Australia, by the time they mounted the invasion the internal revolts would have shattered Indonesia's war fighting abilities.

      Indonesia is not likely to be an integrated and cohesive nation for a long time yet.

      --
      The Singularity is closer than you think
      Quant
  115. China's had the Bomb for ages by Jan-Pascal · · Score: 1

    It even has a hydrogen bomb.

  116. Racist flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Its Pakistan not "Pakinstan"
    2. Pakistan doesn't have a reliable delivery system, aside from their planes.
    3. They don't have enough warheads.

    Shit you are a dumb ass red neck slack jaw inbred hick.

    1. Re:Racist flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're probably a filthy jew... i'd much rather be a redneck - at least my sister is prettier than a hooknosed hairy crotch Israel-loving jewbag like you'd be doing - that is if you finally got done masturbating to Ariel Sharon's picture.

  117. Please.....talk about sensationalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    May the man without sin cast the first stone

    - Slavery was a nice idea in America by the colonists
    - I guess keeping Japanese Americans in camps in WW II is OK
    - Cultural genocide, theft of their lands and subjagation of native Americans was OK
    - Removing due process and flaunting the Geneva convention in Guantanamo Bay is also OK

    I believe you seek your moral guidance from your fuhrer. John Ashcroft the facist

  118. Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

    India would first-strike Pakistan if they calculated (either correctly or not) that an Al Qaeda/Taliban style regime would represent too much of a threat, and that the first strike would be effective.

    In the case of WW-II, it may be that the only reason that Germany did not use toxic weapons was that Hitler had personally been gassed in WW-I and thus chose not to use them.

    Furthermore, WW-I had shown that gas weapons were not that effective if both sides used them. Saddam used them more effectively against Iran but that was because Iran was using poorly equipped suicide mass charges, against which gas is more effective.

    --

    The only good weather is bad weather.

  119. Re:an ultra nationalistic indian...(proud of that! by shankzz · · Score: 1

    hmmm...somebody comes back to reply too...thats nice...c'mon, i am not that dumb to compare Indian economy to urs, or for that matter any other aspect of India with ur country. i was impressed with ur logic of "paying out all debts bfore doing anything else". i just wanted to let u know that things in world dont work that way. it is a fact that indians play an important role in shaping up ur country. u gotta accept that. and i better remind you of sh*t lands like kuwait before you people comfortably forget things of the past in the glory of the present. i still roll down the floor in laughter when i hear things like "saving iraqi people from the fists of their dictator". n.b: dont worry, things like "we should resolve the issue by bilateral talks and a continual process of mutual understanding" that are dished out regularly here give me a healthy dose of laughter. the point is, all are sailing in similar boats. you plug ur boat's hole while i plug mine. no point giggling at the other boat's hole. you might end up down under.

  120. Re:not the moon by xaaronx · · Score: 1

    Helping the poor is a Christian principal. Likewise, zakat or alms-giving is one of the five pillars of Islam.

    --
    It's amazing how much "mature wisdom" resembles being too tired. - Robert Anson Heinlein
  121. Re:The government should try to solve that problem by DevsVult · · Score: 1

    Back when the US space program was at its height in the early 70's, racism and bigotry were even larger problems in that country than they are now. Going to the moon may not have solved those problems directly, but perhaps it demonstrated that humanity can evolve and achieve goals we set ourselves. The rationale for a caste system is fear of change. Space exploration is as much about embracing change as a national way of life as it is about rupee-generating research benefits.

    --
    // DevsVult: The Machines Will It
  122. Ack!!! by 0x1337 · · Score: 1

    Right... that must be it. Time to go back to the 'hood., back to mah hoes, and back to stuffin' myself full of PCP, crack and cheap malt liquor... TTYL!!!

  123. Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    Even the most hardline of Mullahs in Pakistan don't advocate nuking innocent civillians in India, whether they are non-Muslims or not. Pakistan is using the nukes as a deterrant, because they could easily lose a land invasion by India. That's why they said any land invasion or air attack by India will result in nuclear retaliation. India doesn't have to reciprocate the offer, they can put out the "we fire second" offer so they win more friends in the international world. They wouldn't have to strike first with nukes at all, they have enough conventional weapons to totally take Pakistan out to begin with. I agree with you, the "no first use" doctrine is worthless, its a promise they can break, there wouldn't be enough of the country left to sanction anyway.

    The good thing is nobody is willing to sacrifice millions of their own just so they can fight the other.

  124. Re:Um, have you read the paper in the last 10 year by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

    Iran's #2 mullah, Rafsanjani, has indeed said he is willing to sacrifice millions in order to destroy Israel. Pakistan is a different situation. The biggest danger to the US with Pakistan is that an Islamist takeover would result in nukes which could be given to terrorists, and which might be detonated anonymously in the US, with the source unknown (was it Pakistan? Iran? North Korea? stolen Russian Nuke?).

    Perhaps indeed India would not perceive the threat to itself as high enough to instantly attack, in which case my ranking is wrong. However, in an unstable situation where terrorists might acquire the nukes, India would certainly face the same risk as the US: terrorist use of Pakistani nukes, which is a pretty terrible threat.

    My guess: if India could achieve a successful first strike (i.e. a destruction of Pakistani nukes with extremely low risk of nuclear retaliation against population centers), they would probably do so - especially if doing so did not require hitting population centers. If they could not, then it is hard to say what would happen. Perhaps the United States would feel compelled to do so, perhaps using precision non-nuclear weapons.

    --

    The only good weather is bad weather.