Slashdot Mirror
India Brings Back Orbiting Satellite to Earth
bharatm writes "In a pathbreaking event heralding its arrival as a space power with capability to recover an orbiting satellite, India today successfully brought back a spacecraft to earth, giving a new impetus to the proposed manned mission to space in the next decade."
Is test an ASAT missile.
They just did...in true non-violent style, no less.
When I first read the headline and blurb I thought India retrieved a satellite. As in how the Space Shuttle can go up, retrieve a satellite that otherwise is not designed for reentry, and bring it back to earth. This craft was designed for reentry in the first place, so they didn't really "bring" it back - they commanded it to return on its own.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Ya know, I just had an epiphany on outsourcing to India...
We all know the popular press about issues regarding process, quality, et al. with Indian Outsourcing. However: I recall that once upon a time, Japanese manufacturing was the butt of many a joke until the early 1970s.
Just saying, I would suggest that any smirking in the direction of the Indian Outsourcing phenomenon is a little premature because I imagine it is inevitable that these issues will eventually be worked out.
I think it would be better if they gave up their nuclear weapons research rather than their space program. Better to cancel a destructive program than a constructive program to alleviate poverty.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Yes, but you are presuming a causal linkage between the two if you suggest this (i.e. Money for Space = No Money for Food for the Poor).
I'm certain that a few things are on the mind of those who advocate the Space Program for India:
In the end, I think India is reaching for the stars to make sure there is a way for those people to be fed.
India spends a lot of effort on developing military capabilities. Feeding their people is obviously not a priority.
Again: see my first post on this.
It's well and good for us Westerners to wag our fingers at them, but we're not the ones sharing borders with their potentially hostile neighbors (Pakistan, China).
I'm sorry, but that's silly. Money is not a "zero-sum game". You are thinking of "money" in a pure balance-sheet, consumption-level sense. Remember, money is a carrier of value, a representation. If the value of a thing increases ten-fold, do you still pay the same in money for it?
As an example, let's say that by India being able to launch its own satellites it is able to improve its communications grids and make great savings in the cash sense, without relying on Western launchpads and satellites.
Don't you think they're saving money in the long run? Don't you also suppose that by saving that money, they can re-invest those savings in programs that assist the poor?
I do volunteer work in the inner-city and in rural Appalachia so I've seen first-hand the things that your link indicates, but the poverty in these places simply does not compare to what one will see in some of the places (India, Mexico, Ecuador, Bolivia, Pakistan) that I've been.
Yes, there is work to be done in the US but it's mostly treatment and/or education. Your post, however, glibly trivializes the dire circumstances that exist in many parts of the world where there simply is not enough food.While anyone can cook up stats about hunger, there is a simple test that can indicate the true level of hunger in an area: offer a half-eaten sandwich (or whatever) to someone in the street and see the reaction. In the inner-city area near us where I serve, that will at least get you cussed out, if not get the crap beaten out of you. However, we have had six-year-old children at an outdoor restaurant in Oaxaca, Mexico, gratefully eat the last bite of our salad. Similar results in the countries listed above.
The fact is that there is hunger in some instances in the US, but it is more often due to parents' mental illness or drug/alcohol use than to a general lack of food availability. Often there is enough money but it is squandered on other things. In many cases in rural Appalachia, we have gone to houses where the kids truly do not have enough to eat and yet the parents have Marlboros (not even generics) and/or satellite TV. There's not much that can be done when parents care more about smoking and television than feeding their kids. Also, have you never heard of the Hunger/Obesity Paradox. Read up, becuase in America, the poorest kids are also the fattest.
Let's go back to 1499. European countries were launching voyages of exploration, seeking out new trade routes and discovering new countries. Guess who else was doing that? China. Until their government decided that they should fix their problems at home before spending excessive resources on maritime exploration.
So where is China today compared to Europe in terms of domestic poverty? If you're going to stay at home until your domestic problems are solved, you're going to stay at home forever.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
So after they feed their people today, what do they do tomorrow? Welfare is a luxury for countries who have enough money that they don't need to make hard choices between economic progress and social well-being. For a developing nation, spending money on welfare for today's population is a sure way to perpetuate poverty to future generations. Investing in the economy, on the other hand, at least gives the hope that fewer people in the future will need welfare, and moreover that the government will be able to better afford welfare for those who still do need it.
There is also something to be said for the importance of a nation having ambitions on the world stage. Let me use as an example Bangladesh, where my parents were born, and which I still visit on occasion. Bangladesh has no ambition as a nation. Bengalis have no national pride to speak of, aside from a generally provincial sense of moral superiority. Their poverty is something that doesn't just manifest itself in the lack of food on the table, but something that infects their very mindset. They accept the state of affairs in their country, the political corruption and the social instability, because they lack the pride to believe that they are entitled to something better. Of the various problems the country faces, this lack of pride is far worse than flooding or hunger or disease combined. India presents a very stark contrast. If you look at the villages of India, you'll see the same hunger and disease you see in the villages of Bangladesh. But Indians have a great pride in their country, and in its long history of civilization. Their ambition drives them to improve their economy, invest in their infrastructure, and preserve their democracy. It is this ambition that makes it likely that in another couple of generations, India won't have to choose between improving their country and feeding the hungry. There is no similar hope for Bangladesh.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The problem with this argument is in India that experiment only cost maybe 30 cents per person. Even if the total cost was $500M there are so many people that when you spread the cost out it becomes affordable. Conversely if you took the money and used it to buy food it would work out to less than US$1 per poor person.
Giving money or food away does not address the root cause of poverty
The other thing is that the Indian government did not simply burn up the money. The spent it all. If a space experiment costs $500M then all of that $500 went to some scientific institution, university or the like. Al places that they need to support. Money spent on space is not spent in space it is spent on the ground and goes back into the economy
It is a valuable deterrent, especially given that India is surrounded by China on one side and Pakistan on the other - both of which are quite trigger happy.
Secondly, India has a no first use policy, which Pakistan does not share (I am not sure if China has a no first use policy).
Given the region, I'd say it's better to have a deterrent than none.
Besides, if there were no deterrent, there would be more frequent skirmishes and the like which would cost more money in the long term. With this, folks are afraid of any serious incursions because it could escalate into something bigger. So, you save more lives, money and resources that may have been spent on war.
It's not a zero sum game.
Sigh. We always get these posts anytime a 3rd world country tries to expand its horizons. Posts like the parent, or posts referring to charities and such contributing to a country's technological development rather than helping alleviate poverty. I think its incredibly arrogant to dictate to the world's largest democracy what its priorities should be. Show me the country that has *completely* conquered poverty and malnutrition and I'll take your argument to be valid, instead of flamebait. Health care in the US is ranked 15th in the world while we spend enough in Iraq daily to easily alleviate most health care issues and poverty in this country. I don't think you can direct a country of over a billion people to one issue at a time. The nation will follow its course at its pace and we would hope it would do so in a peaceful manner. Space technology is a matter of national security. Much good it would do to be a well fed peaceful country that is constantly being attacked by Pakistani terrorists or under threat of Chinese expansionists tendencies (it's happened before). You act as though Indians are "OK" with the level of poverty and thus feel they can concern themselves with other things. The reality is more that there are many issues facing Indians, and poverty is just one of them. Having a space program is the sign of a decent education system -- though it may not cover everyone yet. Imagine if the Indians hadn't bother to upgrade their telecommunications and computer science experience (instead dumping cash into food every day? Where would the economy be now? I'm encouraged by your sentiment that the situation is heart-breaking, but frankly, your attitude is one of "they're such a primitive people, they should just concentrate on food and shelter." It's one I've seen way to many times here.