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."

Comments

Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy Cow!

Re:And yet

[elrous0]

India launches them. China shoots them down. And NASA spends several years and several $billion contracting with Boeing to develop a missle-proof satellite system to be ready "sometime in 2022."

-Eric

Re:Now all they need to do....

[paeanblack]

Is test an ASAT missile.

They just did...in true non-violent style, no less.

Not retrieval

[Dan East]

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

Re:And yet

[RafaelGCPP]

And what about sharks?? That would be evil!

Priorities

[udderly]

I was in India last year; the poverty and malnutrition in the outlying areas is simply heart-breaking. Worse than anywhere else that I've been. Call me old-fashioned, but before a gov't starts acting on all of their world-stage aspirations, shouldn't they feed their citizens?

I guess that one could make the case that India's space program is an investment in the future, but I wouldn't want to be the one to try to sell that to people who don't have enough food.

Re:Priorities

[Paulrothrock]

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.

Re:Priorities

[unother]

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:

1. India's borders with the Happy Happy Joy Joy Club members, Pakistan and China
2. "Rising Tide" Theory (lifts all boats)
3. Ensuring India has its own capacity to commence further Industrialization, removing some of its dependencies on "First World" technology and power.

In the end, I think India is reaching for the stars to make sure there is a way for those people to be fed.

Re:Priorities

[unother]

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?

Re:Priorities

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Money is definitely not a zero sum game. Infact we have been manufacturing money for many centuries now. Manufacturing money without creating underlying wealth leads to inflation. But we know that we have been creating wealth, whether you measure it by current dollar, rupee value or by constant dollar/rupee value or in non monetary terms like square feet of constructed building, miles of roads or acres of irrigated fields. No sir, money/wealth is not a zero sum game.

Your argument about misplaced priorities, spending resources on space/nuclear program when millions of Indians are starving, has been around for a long long time. Even USA's NASA program came under the same criticism. It has its roots in the old socialistic ethos where equal distribution of poverty was desired more than unequal distribution of prosperity. Glad finally India is also coming around the view, that prosperity is better than poverty.

India has to become the leading edge on a few fields. No one country can dominate all fields, and definitely not India. It can even play cricket well or win an olympic medal. But if India finds a few niches where it can thrive in the global economy and bring home the moolah/bacon/bread/dough it will benefit all, including the poor who everyone is claiming to be sympathetic to. So you should see the investment in space program as an investment to find a tech niche in a growing field, the nuclear program as an investment against the invaders who have been pillaging India for centuries. India has suffered enough investing it all in butter and nothing in guns. In India v2.0 it will do well, I hope.

Re:Priorities

[mdwh2]

What is it about space stories (whether it's the US, or elsewhere) that always brings out the "Won't somebody think of the poor?" comments?

I knew I'd see something like this as soon as I saw this article - and indeed, two comments in the top ten posts.

Why do people not make the same charitable "Think of the poor" suggestions for other things? Most notably military spending, but Governments spend all sorts of money on things other than helping poor people. No one complains then. Indeed, usually you get the opposite response - "Why should I have to pay for poor people?"

Re:Priorities

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Improving communications is so important for the agriculture sector. So many poor Indian farmers harvest their perishable crop and bring it to the market to sell at market price manipulated by the local agents/middlemen. Knowing what is the price in the town 15 km to the south vs the price in 14 km to west will mean a difference of 30% in revenue to the guy tending a half acre plot growing eggplants.

One of the interesting side effects of the cell phone explosion in rural India is that these farmers negotiate deals with big city wholesalers directly and skip one, two or sometimes even three levels of aggregators. Savvy farmers are cutting out the commissions to the middlemen by a large extent.

Of course weather prediction is another huge factor for Indian agriculture.

Re:Priorities

[geobeck]

...before a gov't starts acting on all of their world-stage aspirations, shouldn't they feed their citizens?

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.

Re:Priorities

[be-fan]

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.

Re:Priorities

[ChrisA90278]

Call me old-fashioned, but before a gov't starts acting on all of their world-stage aspirations, shouldn't they feed their citizens?

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

Re:Priorities

[metlin]

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.

Re:Priorities

[posterlogo]

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.

Regarding Outsourcing

[unother]

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.

Re:An anonymous troll wrote (Feed your Children, I

[unother]

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).

Re:Katrina Re:Priorities

[nomadic]

Shouldn't US have rebuilt New orleans and Missisippi devastated by Katrina before jumping into the Iraq War?

Yep. I think most people here are not going to argue that the Iraq war is worth the expense.

Each nation has its own priorities, and while you spout an altrustic question, the same was true in 1969 when UJS landed a man on moon.
The poverty in US at that time was high enough.

No, it wasn't. I think parent's argument isn't that you have to completely wipe out poverty, but that the level of poverty in India is so bad that a space program really is a waste of money. The poverty in the US in 1969 is still exponentially less than in modern-day India.

Best thing

[Fist! Of! Death!]

Best to retrieve it before China shoots it down I guess.

Re:Serves that satellite right

[flyingfsck]

In India they speak English, which is not exactly the same as American. To Indians, India is 'home' and they may even have a government department known as the 'Home Office' or even a minister of 'Home Affairs' - that is the English tradition anyway. Therefore, on a grand scale, 'home built', simply means 'Made in India'.

Re:Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

[udderly]

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.

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.

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.

Moonraker?

[Brunellus]

I just started humming the theme from "Moonraker"

Re:You miss something

[cayenne8]

""India launches them. The United States, Russia and China shoot them down. "

I certainly hope not.

This is the first step by India, hopefully, towards establishing the first Quickie Mart on the moon!!

:-)