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."
Holy Cow!
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.
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 to retrieve it before China shoots it down I guess.
Nothing witty
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?
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'.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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.