India Launches Five Foreign Satellites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

India Launches Five Foreign Satellites

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday July 1, 2014 @05:14PM from the high-five dept.

vasanth writes: "India has put into orbit five foreign satellites, including one built by France two from Canada and one each from Singapore and Germany. The PSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle) has so far successfully launched 67 satellites, including 40 foreign ones, into space. The PSLV costs about 17 million USD and the cost is seen as a major advantage India has over other countries in terms of commercial launches. When talking about the cost of the project, the Prime Minister of India noted that the launch was cheaper than Hollywood film Gravity.

41 of 85 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:They seem to be doing good, Ban H1B by Cryacin · 2014-07-01 17:29 · Score: 1, Troll

When talking about the cost of the project,
They noted an innovative technology stack to launch the satellites. When asked what the major challenges were, Anil Gupta, chief scientist responded that getting the rubber band stretched far enough without breaking was, although common, still very challenging.

--
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Manned mission please... by monzie · 2014-07-01 17:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

ISRO ( Indian Space Research Organization ) launch vehicles have attained the goals set for them. A politician recently pointed out that cost of sending 5 satellites to space was less than the budget of the movie Gravity ( I liked that movie, he should have picked Avatar for the example IMO ). The Mangalyaan ( Mars Mission ) costs less than â12 per km travelled, making it the most cost effective mars mission ever. These launches were done by the PSLV ( Polar satellite launch vehicle ) and cannot be used for manned launches. ISRO has suffered setbacks , notably with GSLV ( Geostationary satellite launch vehicle ) and in mastering the cryogenic engine. They have made progress and their track record makes them a very good contender to provide a good alternative to SpaceX.
1. Re: Manned mission please... by monzie · 2014-07-01 17:38 · Score: 1
  
  That was "12 Rupees per km". Slashdot did something weird with the Rupee symbol.
2. Re: Manned mission please... by Blaskowicz · 2014-07-02 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  The reason is not technical as far as I know.
  I remember reading that Slashdot tried it a billion years ago, even - but I'm not sure about that.
  If you give every possible Unicode character available to anyone you get svatiskas, unwarranted impersonations by abusing nearly identical characters, and at the least Unicode goatse.
3. Re: Manned mission please... by jandrese · 2014-07-02 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Even more fun was when people entered the Unicode character that reverses the following text on the page.
  
  That said, sanitizing problematic characters seems like a far more reasonable solution than throwing the baby out with the bathwater because Unicode is scary.
  
  --
  
  I read the internet for the articles.
4. Re:Manned mission please... by cmarkn · 2014-07-02 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  The reason you need people in space is that people adapt, improvise and overcome obstacles when things go wrong, and Murphy rides on every mission. Look at Apollo 13. Because there were people on that spacecraft, they were able to complete the minimum mission, getting themselves home alive. Of course if this had it been two robotic vehicles, we could have just said they're only robots and let them fly away like the Voyagers. The point is that people adapt. Look at the Mars Exploration Rovers. They are running down as they collect dust on their solar cells. If there were people driving around there, they'd tear the cover off one of their procedures manual and tape it together to make fenders to keep the dust from being thrown up by the wheels, and they'd simply brush off what did collect.
  And there's another reason people must go into space. Look at what Ender was able to do to the Formics in the movie because they put all their eggs in one basket, never leaving their homeworld. All it takes is one massive collision or one alien invasion and we're done.
  
  --
  People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
Great for India by AHuxley · 2014-07-01 17:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

They studied hard and ensured they fully understood every aspect of basic satellite lunch systems domestically before moving to the next stage.
Other nations used military funding, the private sector, other governments and imports to try and boost their own domestic projects.
So many failed as the cash needed never could make up for what India fully understood from the 1960's: its about not getting ahead of your own domestic science.
Now India can enjoy lower cost launch systems without needing any other nations help, costly imports or permission.
"Indian Space Research Organisation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Re:Great for India by AHuxley · 2014-07-01 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  Re "They still had to study the work of others who pioneered it, based on military funding."
  The UK tried that with Skynet (satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... They had to use U.S. assets and that was very interesting for the UK during the Falklands War.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:Great for India by serviscope_minor · 2014-07-01 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually the UK (well the government---and all major parties are pretty muich indistinguishable in this regard as well as others) do this but with an extra flourish.
  First they have the expense of funding the development of a home grown system. This usually works becuase the UK has a large economy, good education, first world logistics and etc.
  The someone decides it's "cheaper to buy from America" so they scrap all the locally developed stuff and lose the institutional knowledge as well as let the existing stuff slowly become obsolete.
  Then the US stuff gets more expensive because the US military stops bankrolling it so heavily.
  NOW we have the expese and difficulty of running someone else's stuff, where all teh money gets funnled out of the economy instead of back in.
  It's like the situation you described, except much more expensive, far more futile and even more stupid. It's not just America as well. We love giving up great tech and then buying it back at great expense. It's practically a national passtime. But now we've become a service economy. This has not helped. Now it seems we do *exactly* the same with services too.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
3. Re:Great for India by ThatsMyNick · 2014-07-01 20:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  they still can't clean up their garbage, their sewage, or feed, house, and clothe 90% of their population. They can't even keep the power grid they do have up and running reliably.
  You know what can fund them? Launching satellites for other countries, commercially, can. :)
4. Re:Great for India by jma05 · 2014-07-01 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  > A power grid that can't be kept up reliably? That's not something customers want to see when you're trying to convince them to let you launch multi-million dollar pieces of equipment up into space.
  Wanna bet? Go to Indian forums and try to find people complaining that no space projects should go on until they get uninterrupted power supply.
  Don't do space projects that get us (or help get in near future) profits in foreign exchange said no Indian ever.
5. Re:Great for India by nashv · 2014-07-01 22:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No one was judging a country based on their rocket launching capability. People were appreiciating the efficient and economic rocket launching capability and the efforts that went into developing it. You are one who is doing the judging of an entire country, rather than just the particular achievement reported posted in the article.
  As for all the problems you describe as being present in India, as an Indian I thank you for your concern. But seeing as you aren't doing that much to help us solve them, you can keep this list of what is wrong with yourself. We already have that list for the last 60 years.
  
  --
  Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
6. Re:Great for India by Rich0 · 2014-07-01 22:13 · Score: 2
  
  A power grid that can't be kept up reliably? That's not something customers want to see when you're trying to convince them to let you launch multi-million dollar pieces of equipment up into space.
  Their customers don't care as long as the launch facility can operate when the locals are in darkness. Companies have figured out that by operating in the third world they can still have first-world conditions in their manufacturing facilities when it improves efficiency, but not have to pay for their employees or the rest of the country to have it when they go home. If you operate in the US you have to pay all kinds of taxes (or pay employees who have to be able to afford taxes) so that the city streets aren't covered in garbage. From a pure productivity standpoint it is much cheaper to only pay to remove garbage from areas where it could actually interfere with whatever work you're getting done.
7. Re:Great for India by dbIII · 2014-07-02 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  They still had to study the work of others who pioneered it,
  So? NASA and the US military wasn't shy about using Australian technology in scramjets recently because it's not a pissing contest of "must be invented here". It's about getting stuff done.
  I could use a far more obvious example of where US rocketry "still had to study the work of others who pioneered it" but some would consider it a Godwin.
8. Re:Great for India by AikonMGB · 2014-07-02 00:48 · Score: 2
  
  Further, this is a high-technology field in which India can excel and become a prominent provider. This brings national prestige, foreign investment and support, provides (some) high-value jobs, and fosters better education. No, it's not going to solve India's problems over night, but it can help.
9. Re:Great for India by AikonMGB · 2014-07-02 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  I would have modded you "+1 Insightful" instead of funny. As I mentioned above, this is a high-technology field that brings national prestige, fosters education, and can bring in foreign money. You are spot on.
10. Re:Great for India by dywolf · 2014-07-02 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  See? This only proves how much we don't need NASA. Daggone big gubmint boondoggles!
  Now we can add NASA to the privatization list by letting GE or Boeing or someone outsource our space program to India!
  (i'm merely impersonating other inviduals around here; i in no way believe we should actually do this)
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
11. Re:Great for India by cmarkn · 2014-07-02 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Power is under control of the state and each state's power board subsidizes electricity prices thoroughly and always runs in losses, without a care for better infrastructure or future planning.
  This is simply not true at all. There is at least one state, Texas, where electricity prices are set by the companies that generate power and the companies that deliver it. Remarkably, those companies have built capacity as it is needed including wind and hydro sources, and all the while made a profit. Sorry to hear how inefficiently your state is run.
  
  --
  People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people.
12. Re:Great for India by jma05 · 2014-07-03 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Jokes aside, many Indians just use laptops and 3G data cards which have quite cheap and affordable plans compared to US (start at $2 a month). So power cuts don't really effect computer use. If you are middle class in India, you probably might also have battery backup or a generator subscription for the house essentials.
13. Re:Great for India by jma05 · 2014-07-03 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  He is talking about states in India, not US.
14. Re:Great for India by fox171171 · 2014-07-03 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  They studied hard and ensured they fully understood every aspect of basic satellite lunch systems domestically before moving to the next stage.
  I can imagine an Indian scientist thinking "Hmmm... what do satellites like to eat for lunch, and what type of system can we build to feed it to them?"
15. Re:Great for India by jma05 · 2014-07-03 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  True. Indian Internet is not great for heavy media usage. It is quite adequate for posting to "forums" the OP was talking about.
  The broadband plans I have seen have x speed, a relatively low cap, but an unlimited x/2 speed hence after. Not too bad. The cheapest broadband I have seen is 1 mbps for $8, 20 GB cap, further usage is unlimited at 512 kbps. I don't recall what the more expensive plans offer. Low-cost, lower-tier alternatives are more important for India. India's primary concern ATM is access, not throughput. The speeds and caps are not show stoppers for most part. HD Video and game services like Steam (or even plain game consoles) won't take off in this environment, but everything else should be fine.
Manned mission please... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-01 17:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

That was true until the GSAT-14 launch. Those guys have talked about their commitment to delivering a better GSLV Mark III, so it'll be awaited.
Technically, it doesn't make too much sense to send a human being as much as it makes to send a robotic creature down there. It's the same reason we use Drones and Surgical Arms. :-)
Perhaps we may require humans on a space station if Robots can't handle certain sensing tasks too well. But that's pretty much the scope of human beings out there. What we could really benefit from is actually better satellite communication and reliable remote assignments with a 5 minute purview.
Is it true, or is it another lie. by LordWabbit2 · 2014-07-01 20:52 · Score: 1

I wonder how accurate that figure is, even Russel Peters jokes about how if you want your taxes done "right" you take it to an Indian book keeper.

--
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
1. Re:Is it true, or is it another lie. by sonamchauhan · 2014-07-01 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  You know Russell Peters is a comedian, right? :-) I'll wait for the meta-episode where Peters makes fun of people who got suckered into believing what he said.
2. Re:Is it true, or is it another lie. by dbIII · 2014-07-02 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Are you really making that joke in the land of Enron and a cast of thousands?
Makes a lot of sense by Justpin · 2014-07-01 21:19 · Score: 1

As launches closer to the equator are given a 'free' boost by the rotation of the earth. There was a doomed project called sea launch from sea platforms which sailed to the equator specifically for this purpose. Though granted Europe has Guyana which is even closer.
1. Re:Makes a lot of sense by AikonMGB · 2014-07-02 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  It really depends what your target inclination is. In general for a non-polar orbit, you want a launch complex with a latitude close to that inclination to minimize plane changes. This is why the ISS is at 51.65 degrees, to make it "easily" accessible from Baikonur. So yes, Sriharikota's proximity to the equator will be beneficial for low-inclination (near-equatorial) launches.
  This particular launch, however, was to a sun-synchronous polar orbit. Your launch complex's latitude is much less important when launching to a polar orbit.
Re:They seem to be doing good, Ban H1B by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-01 21:58 · Score: 1

Nice to see the inconvenient truth being modded Offtopic...
Lauch cheaper than the film Gravity . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-07-01 22:45 · Score: 1

the Prime Minister of India noted that the launch was cheaper than Hollywood film Gravity.
That seems like a wacky comparison to me.
Ok, but maybe Gravity made more money than their launch?
Or, maybe they didn't actually do the launch, but just faked it in a film, like those folks who claim that the Apollo landings were fake films made by Stanley Kubrick in Area 51 . . . ?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
1. Re:Lauch cheaper than the film Gravity . . . ? by necro81 · 2014-07-02 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  I found it a pretty goofy comparison, too. Gravity, according to imdb, cost an estimated $100 million to make. For that price, you could score a launch on almost any launch vehicle currently in service.
2. Re:Lauch cheaper than the film Gravity . . . ? by dbIII · 2014-07-02 00:37 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds like a good comparison. One star vehicle launched in a place with an unreliable power grid compared with another.
Re:They seem to be doing good, Ban H1B by gweihir · 2014-07-02 01:36 · Score: 1

Well, I guess they actually care about getting things done, instead of posturing before the whole world as "the greatest nation on earth". Actually doing things works a lot better than to rely on past glory.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:US should import the brains instead of banning by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-07-02 02:23 · Score: 1

To be honest, PSLV is cheap in absolute terms, but it's not exactly the pinnacle of payload weight. SpaceX asks for $56M for Falcon 9 v1.1 (as opposed to $15M for a PSLV launch) that can carry about four times as much payload to LEO, which makes Falcon 9 actually a few percent cheaper.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Why soo much hate by goblinspy · 2014-07-02 03:34 · Score: 1

From reading all these comments I see lot of hate against India and Indians. Has /. now becoming like any other politically inclined news / blog.
Easy to do, when you manipulate the money by WindBourne · 2014-07-02 04:47 · Score: 1

Seriously, this is because they are manipulating the rupee against the $. This has to stop.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:Easy to do, when you manipulate the money by WindBourne · 2014-07-02 14:47 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you say that? It looks like you posted at 7, not 11.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
2. Re:Easy to do, when you manipulate the money by WindBourne · 2014-07-02 15:15 · Score: 1
  
  Uniformed troll is uninformed, News at 11.
  BTW, here you go.
  
  --
  I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Meanwhile... by WindBourne · 2014-07-02 04:52 · Score: 1

Actually, other than the fact that they are cheating by manipulating their money, they ARE prioritizing correctly. You need a decent economy to help your nation. As such, they are working hard at doing so.
In a way, I have no issue with their manipulating their money, but object, when their economy booms and they continue to keep the manipulation going, along with blocking other nations.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Meanwhile... by Eunuchswear · 2014-07-02 09:05 · Score: 1

665 million Indians don't have a private toilet. Way to prioritize, India.
The "whitey's on the moon" argument looks wierd here.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video
HTML representation of foreign symbols on /. by unixisc · 2014-07-03 06:57 · Score: 1

The rupee symbol has an HTML representation 8377 or &#8377. Even if /. doesn't want to support Unicode, can't it at least support the HTML representations that are there, so that people using that can represent foreign currencies or other symbols?