Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

India Ends Russian Space Partnership and Will Land On the Moon Alone

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-by-myself dept.

An anonymous reader writes: The Russian space program has experienced numerous accidents and delays recently, leading Indian officials to call into question its long term viability. Now India has decided to pull out of a partnership with Russia for a mission to the moon. According to the Examiner: "Previously, India was scheduled to launch a Russian lander on one of its rockets and send it to the lunar South Pole. Now, according to a story in Russia and India Report, India will go it alone, building its own lander to touch down on the lunar surface within the next few years.

65 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Twenty five years of science destruction... by virens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... brought this shithole called russia to complete degradation of engineering and scientific potential. Typical salary of research assistant used to be 200 USD (back in 2008 when I worked there). Almost impossible to buy any modern (i.e. Western) equipment - local hardware has exorbitant pricetags with chinese-type quality. Median age of "researchers" was 65 years old. Outdated equipment from museums (I remember doing optical experiments with calibrated light sources from 1950 (sic)). Stupid nationalism - you cannot write Ph.D. in English, and almost no subscriptions to modern journals. They still live in 1960x, thinking they are great. I'm surprised that India waited this long to ditch those pompous morons.

    Full disclosure: I used to work in MePHI as a research associate. I left this shithole, like everyone who wanted to do something worth of their life, and never looked back.

    1. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by catmistake · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I'm surprised that India waited this long to ditch those pompous morons.

      I'm surprised, too, but not by that. Well, thinking positively, I hope India can get off the ground and get to the Moon and can there find safe drinking water, sanitation, housing, health infrastructure as well as something to reduce the malnutrition for the hundreds of millions in their country that find they are still in very short supply.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
    2. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      After reviewing your other comments I can only conclude that you're one miserable, angry person. You might want to seek professional help. It is possible to be happy with life even when things aren't going your way.

      It seems that your biggest problem with MePHI was that it didn't have lots of money to spend on equipment or stipends for research assistants.

      I hate to be the one to tell you but academia generally pays poorly outside of the US. More so in a country like Russia that is still clawing its way back up from the economic collapse that occurred during the transition from communism to capitalism.

      With regards to the articles, and in the case of the examiner I use that word loosely, I hope that both Russia and India's moon missions are a success. For the benefit of science. :-)

    3. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to be the one to tell you but academia generally pays poorly outside of the US. More so in a country like Russia that is still clawing its way back up from the economic collapse that occurred during the transition from communism to capitalism.

      Perhaps if most of the country's wealth wasn't concentrated in the hands of a handful of corrupt oligarchs who live like a modern version of Roman emperors they'd be able to pay researchers a living wage.

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
    4. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by tuxgeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      I occasionally work with Russians here in Alaska.
      To their credit, they are very hard workers.

      First thing I ask of them is "say moose and squirrel"

      --
      "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
    5. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by istartedi · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is the same kind of thing that was said in the US. The space program had more "spin-off" benefits than I can list. Computers, solar cells, etc. were all advanced by contributions from space research. If it hadn't been for computers in particular, I don't know what kind of work I would have had. It probably wouldn't have been such a good ride for me, and I was never directly employed by NASA. Yes. There are still poor people in the USA... carrying pocket computers.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    6. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      I remember doing optical experiments with calibrated light sources from 1950...They still live in 1960x

      Well, they ain't russian to get anything new.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    7. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I spent almost 10 years in MEPhI between 1989 and 1998, and it was really sad to see how everything was falling apart... One winter, there was no heating in all buildings, some heating pipes got frozen and some busted from ice... And the administration tried to make some money by renting some property to commercial organisation. So most of those who could do something useful started to leave. From I heard, the situation did not get much better in the 2000s.

    8. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by Renegade88 · · Score: 1

      No, you are supposed to get the reference, kiddo.

    9. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by FilatovEV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps if most of the country's wealth wasn't concentrated in the hands of a handful of corrupt oligarchs who live like a modern version of Roman emperors they'd be able to pay researchers a living wage.

      Can you imagine that the rise of the class of super-rich was viewed as a huge achievement in Russia's 1990s? Like, we've ditched the ineffective Socialism and now we have the super-rich like the rest of the world! Isn't that the huge progress we've made?

    10. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Only communists could disagree with that!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by FilatovEV · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

    12. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The space race is back on, which is really cool. India pulling away from Russia has very little to do with Russia and everything to do with India wanting it's place in the world or in the solar system. A lot of countries are catching up and wanting their presence in the space. So they will tend to go it alone some what, whilst working together with others in larger projects. Obviously if you do not have your own distinct space program, you will end up being treated like a poor orphan when it comes to participating in other countries space programs no matter how much you contribute to them. You must make your own independent contributions to the space race before you efforts will be genuinely recognised in shared programs and to ensure you are not treated like a beggar at the bottom of a gravity well.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re: Twenty five years of science destruction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would beg to differ. In the space race time even the poorest of children were required to learn, even the simplest of us can learn about stars and how to get there. Or dream of a better world. Now they are taught, save the earth, your only home. Don't dream of a future, you are all going die, ; is there a difference?

    14. Re:Twenty five years of science destruction... by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're right. Hey, did you see this?. For all we know, the reasonable budgets of a national space program with a Moon mission are a bargain for the new technology this mission might discover, and someday provide to prevent mass population die-offs due to poverty. But I really doubt it and I can't agree. India's space program is a bad idea considering they have such severe national problems. If the US in the 1960's was half as bad as India is today, the Moon missions would probably not have happened, even if Russia's program was putting pressure on US dominating races to every possible technical achievement. First feed your kids, istartedi... THEN you can go to the Moon.

      --
      The Admin and the Engineer
  2. My bet's on India by AndyKron · · Score: 3

    India will probably do it. They already made it to Mars.

  3. Everyone is going to the Moon... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except for the United States. We're too busy planning to hump an asteroid in lunar orbit to explore future mining opportunities. Never mind that mining is illegal under existing space treaty.

    1. Re:Everyone is going to the Moon... by radarskiy · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is absolutely nothing in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 that prevents commercial exploitation, and it actively encourages scientific exploitation. What it prohibits is national appropriation, i.e. no country can claim claim territory.
      What is unclear is who who has jurisdiction over conflicts between nationals of different signatories. (Nationals of the same signatory are under the jurisdiction of that signatory.) For example, if US Space Mining Co comes along a picks up the processed ore from EU Space Mining Co and runs off with it EUSMCo has no venue for redress of the theft.

    2. Re:Everyone is going to the Moon... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Never mind that mining is illegal under existing space treaty.

      The Outer Space Treaty bans claims of sovereignty, but does not ban individual property rights. You cannot own the moon, but if you dig up and process lunar regolith, the resulting product should be yours.

       

    3. Re:Everyone is going to the Moon... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      It's Planetary Resources that wants the U.S. to break the treaty. Remember that name. No doubt it will become the Wal-Mart of outer space.

    4. Re:Everyone is going to the Moon... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Never mind that mining is illegal [vice.com] under existing space treaty.

      Actually, no. The Treaty in question makes it illegal for GOVERNMENTS to lay claim to celestial bodies. It doesn't appear to say much, if anything, about what private individuals do in space (probably because noone imagined the possibility of private individuals doing anything in space when the Treaty was made).

      Note that it could be argued that property rights are granted by a government and so it is impossible for a private citizen/corporation to do anything in space without government approval, which would be tantamount to a treaty violation.

      On the other hand, history is pretty much full of private individuals going out beyond the territories of any existing government, and doing pretty much what they liked there. Note the colonization of the Americas as an example.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Everyone is going to the Moon... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Sounds much more productive than duplicating past achievements. Mining will be necessary to build a self sustaining economy in space.

    6. Re:Everyone is going to the Moon... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It's Planetary Resources that wants the U.S. to break the treaty. Remember that name. No doubt it will become the Wal-Mart of outer space.

      If that's the price of actually developing space industry to the point of having a Wal-Mart of outer space, so be it. Then I can buy me a space ship and fly... past the sky.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Everyone is going to the Moon... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Probably be like the high seas. Pirates are usually dealt with harshly even if they're in international waters.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Everyone is going to the Moon... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Go back to watching your faux news, asshole.

      If I was trolling, I would post as an AC... just... like... you.

      P.S., This is Slashdot, not Politico.

  4. I'll believe it when I see it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't it strange how there are no UNMANNED rovers, rolling all over the Moon right now? Seeing as the computer would be about a thousandth the size of the ones used in Lunakhod, the solar cell technology must be ten times more powerful nowadays, and all the other technology must be MUCH better than it was back then. So why aren't there twenty rovers sending 4k video back from the Moon every day, to millions of willing subscribers on Earth, who would love to see the Moon like that?

    1. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that. Meanwhile, Mars gets all the love, including a new rover.

    2. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by itzly · · Score: 1

      So why aren't there twenty rovers sending 4k video back from the Moon every day, to millions of willing subscribers on Earth, who would love to see the Moon like that?

      Once you've seen one grey lunar hill, you've seen them all.

    3. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So why aren't there twenty rovers sending 4k video back from the Moon every day

      Because we have already been there, we got plenty of lunar rocks, and there is no particular reason to go back. Mars is much more interesting, and asteroids provide far better economic opportunities.

    4. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Love" is the nice way to put it. "Largess at the expense of all other solar system exploration" would be more accurate. Here's a graph. And it's always the same stupid justifications - how many times can we pretend to be excited about "revelations" that Mars was once in its past a wet place? Or that we're going to stumble into life any time soon in its perchlorate-rich, destroys-organics-on-contact regolith?

      And it's not just huge amounts of money that they're wasting - they're also throwing away most of the remainder of our plutonium supply. At least there's money to start making it again, but it'll take time. Plutonium is precious, and it's needed for outer planet missions.

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
    5. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Indeed. With all of the stuff that we have no clue about there in our solar system, why spend so much time on the second-best studied body on the solar system? I'd take a single Titan-exploring tiltrotor VTOL craft over a hundred new lunar rovers.

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
    6. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Millions of subscribers? You have trouble nowadays convincing people that we went to the moon in the first place. Even the worst television series has more views than any (real) space-related stuff.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 2

      Because we have already been there, we got plenty of lunar rocks, and there is no particular reason to go back. Mars is much more interesting, and asteroids provide far better economic opportunities.

      "We" have done no such thing. Only a hand full of people have been to the moon. I don't know about you, for all I know you might have been one of them. I do know that one of them wasn't "me."

      That is the most important reason I want to go back to the moon. I haven't been there and I would love see the original sites of the first moon landings.

      That is how I want to do it, tour the moon like tourist.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    8. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I'd take a single Titan-exploring tiltrotor VTOL craft over a hundred new lunar rovers.

      SUNDAYsundaySUNDAYit'sDUSTSLINGINROVERCRASHINACTION

      You'll pay for the whole spacesuit but you'll only use the pants! BE THERE (by telepresence) OR BE SQUARE. etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the rover China sent. It didn't last very long, though.

      --
      (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    10. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Millions of subscribers? You have trouble nowadays convincing people that we went to the moon in the first place. Even the worst television series has more views than any (real) space-related stuff.

      That aside, watching a mars rover live is like watching paint dry. Opportunity has a top speed of 0.18 km/h and on average it has moved 10 meters a day. It spent over 11 years on a marathon that runners on Earth do in two hours. Everything else it does is equally slow, it makes a sloth seem energetic. The reason is of course that it's running on a tiiiiiiiny trickle of power, but it doesn't make for great entertainment. It's like for example CERN, you get a huge splash when they find the Higgs boson but between that it's months and years between something newsworthy happening.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Only one geologist has been there and we've only got samples from a small number of locations, with not much of an idea about what is even a few inches beneath the surface.

    12. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by itzly · · Score: 1

      Well, if you save up a few hundred billion dollars, someone might be willing to take you there.

    13. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      they're also throwing away most of the remainder of our plutonium supply.

      Easy solution to this - start building more reactors that can manufacture Pu238, rather than listen to the whinging of the NIMBYs.

      That gets us Pu238 for space probes and carbon-free power at the same time....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Its not that simple. You can't just recover it from nuclear reactor waste because it's mixed in with other isotopes of plutonium, and isn't in that great of quantities to begin with. So first off you have to reprocess nuclear waste to extract the neptunium - which again, itself isn't in very great quantities, it takes a lot of waste, and most places don't want to do waste reprocessing to begin with due to cost and liability issues. You then have to make neptunium targets and expose them to a neutron flux - that is, using neutronicity that could otherwise be used for power generation or other valuable purposes (it takes a lot of neutrons to make a tiny bit of Pu238). Pu238 should be more thought of as a manufactured product than as a byproduct of particular types of nuclear reactors.

      There are a few other candidates for use as space power sources that actually are waste products, but they're all significantly worse performers. There are two other alternatives. One is to make a Sterling RTG, which was in development, but funding has been cut off (it's also kind of tricky because you have to ensure that something with moving parts will operate for decades in the harsh environment of space). The other is to make an actual nuclear reactor. This means almost limitless power, but it comes at the expense of not only massive development costs and public opposition, but a large minimum size and massive radiator requirements, as well as the same reliability challenges of sterling generators.

      There's no easy solutions. Except, of course, to stop bloody wasting plutonium once we have it.

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
    15. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Its not that simple. You can't just recover it from nuclear reactor waste because it's mixed in with other isotopes of plutonium, and isn't in that great of quantities to begin with. So first off you have to reprocess nuclear waste to extract the neptunium - which again, itself isn't in very great quantities, it takes a lot of waste, and most places don't want to do waste reprocessing to begin with due to cost and liability issues. You then have to make neptunium targets and expose them to a neutron flux - that is, using neutronicity that could otherwise be used for power generation or other valuable purposes (it takes a lot of neutrons to make a tiny bit of Pu238). Pu238 should be more thought of as a manufactured product than as a byproduct of particular types of nuclear reactors.

      Yes, I know it's not all that simple. Never suggested it was.

      However, the first step in the process is still more reactors. Without the reactors, you're not going to have the radioisotopes you want for other purposes, like, say, powering deep space probes of one sort or another.

      It's just another reason why we really need to get over this phobia of the word "nuclear"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    16. Re:I'll believe it when I see it... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      I do know that one of them wasn't "me."

      Perhaps, then, one of the others were you?

  5. Russia can't launch a space satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They do, however, have a President who can ride shirtless on the back of grizzly bear.

    1. Re:Russia can't launch a space satellite by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      He was riding on the back of a regular horse.
      You must be confused by his chest hair.

  6. Re:Smart by meerling · · Score: 1

    India has plenty of their own infrastructure and political issues.
    Well, I guess that's not such a bad idea, that way they only have to deal with their own as opposed to that plus Russian issues.

  7. Re:Smart by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, you're right. However, life is still a lot better in the USA than it is in India.

  8. In Soviet Russia by codeButcher · · Score: 2

    Bah. Should have stayed Soviet. Soviet Russia does not outsource space program work; just to have insourcing country take whole project and leave Russkies without job.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  9. Re:Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny, your description there can also be applied to Americans, and I'm an American. Fat stupid lazy americans watching fox news. Totally embarrassing!

  10. Re:Smart by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    This is definitely true.

  11. Re: Smart by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    I don't want hear [I]anyone[/I] chiming in on "fat, stupid, lazy" until [b]they[/b] can say they spent ten-plus years in Oklahoma...

  12. Back to the Lunar Future by sanman2 · · Score: 1

    Anyway, more landers on the Moon creates more experience for future human operations on the Moon. We need a Moonbase, a lunar research station, a lunar university... a lunar Disneyland?

    1. Re: Back to the Lunar Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Need is correct. In biological terms, grow or die. In survival (as a species) terms, be redundant. Need is absolutely correct.

    2. Re: Back to the Lunar Future by itzly · · Score: 1

      Need is absolutely correct.

      There's no need for our species to survive.

  13. Re: What's he gonna say? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    I thought vindaloos on spacecraft were a bad idea?

  14. Bollywood? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    I just can't wait for the first Bollywood movie on/about the Moon!
    It's going to happen guys and gals. Just wait!
    (I have the Bollywood app on my Windows phone)

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  15. Is it believable? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    It's an interesting document, but consider the source.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  16. Re: Smart by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I don't want hear [I]anyone[/I] chiming in on "fat, stupid, lazy" until [b]they[/b] can say they spent ten-plus years in Oklahoma...

    Takes one to know one, huh?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Who? by redwraith94 · · Score: 1

    The Kerbal space program...

    FTFY

    --
    I art more snarky, and terse than thou. I art Slashdot!
  18. Show 'em, India!! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    lol? India can't even keep the power on. They can't clean up their garbage. They can't clean up their water supply...

    You guys always look down on countries in Asia / Africa such as India or Kenya

    You guys always think that countries such as India can never catch up

    I have news for you...
     
    While it is true India does have its hands full with the myriad problems that it is facing, India has bean growing leaps and bounds in terms of improving its own infrastructures and in its talent pool for the past few decades, and THIS TREND IS RAPIDLY ACCELERATING IN SCALE

    I know, because I do have businesses in India, and I go to India several times every year

    To India and to all Indians - as you guys have seen for yourself the snobbery the "Western People" are towards India, isn't it time India stands up and show the world - especially those Western snobs - what you can

    Show 'em, India!!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Show 'em, India!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      say what you will, I've been there many times on work, it's a steaming pile of a country.

    2. Re:Show 'em, India!! by andot · · Score: 1

      Probably the poster you quoted was troll from russian troll factory.

    3. Re:Show 'em, India!! by rinka · · Score: 1

      Thought I'd answer this one about standing up and showing the world.

      Taco Cowboy - We're not in a hurry. I think (as an Indian), being inclusive is far more important and this will help us all succeed together. We still don't have the strength/power to do that today but as you can see, we're building up to it.

      Yes, we (especially those of us who have worked outside India) are pretty aware of some of the racist comments - a lot of us have experienced it. But having been born and brought up in an extremely diverse society, we know how to come together to succeed together.

      Give us time. One day, we will say yes we can!! (stand together)...

  19. Re:that's a hell of a long ways to go.. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Modern take on Honeymooners: "To the moon with your job, Alice!"

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  20. Humans and society before space program? by bluepuma · · Score: 1

    With a child mortality rate (under five years old) in India of 52 (compare UK: 5, US: 7) and a literacy rate of 90% (or 74%, depending on source; compare UK/US: 99%) I wonder if the money should not rather be spend on healthcare and education (and health education). Even though space travel and lunar landing seems more fun.

    Sources: Unicef Unesco Wikipedia

  21. Fingers crossed... by src1138 · · Score: 1

    There is a huge difference between sending a unmanned probe and sending a manned mission to the moon. There are unmanned probes all over the solar system - but relatively few manned missions, and none of them even close to the moon in the last 40 years or so.

    Still, if the US could do it in the 60's, India should be able to pull it off in the next 5 years or so. They are standing on the shoulders of Soviet/Russian and American scientists and pilots, so that should accelerate things a bit.