Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISRO Launches Record 5 UK Satellites, Part of a Long String of Successes

Posted by timothy on from the aloft-a-lot dept.

vasanth writes: India launched its heaviest commercial space mission ever with its polar rocket successfully putting five British satellites into the intended orbit after a flawless takeoff. With the overall mass of five satellites being about 1,440 kg, this launch becomes the "heaviest commercial mission" ever undertaken by ISRO and its commercial arm Antrix Corporation.

The workhorse of India's space program, the PSLV is on a run of 25 consecutive successful launches. First flown in 1993, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, or PSLV, is by far India's most-used rocket for orbital missions – accounting for thirty of the country's 46 launches to date including Friday's.

33 comments

  1. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Ah, India the country so poor we give it millions and millions in development aid every year, and now they launch satellites into space for us.

    I'm glad India is a success in the space business... I'm not so glad of funding them out of my own pocket.

    1. Re:Hmm... by lisaparratt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that aid is charity. It's not. It's leverage.

    2. Re:Hmm... by lgw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm glad India is a success in the space business... I'm not so glad of funding them out of my own pocket.

      Oh? So you think India's "commercial space business" operates at a loss? I rather doubt more than $10 has gone out of "your own pocket" to India in any case, as foreign aid is a tiny percentage of US government spending.

      I give thousands in charity to groups that will spend it on the needy (though I suspect little of it goes to India, as they're doing relatively well, compared to the worst places); I also invest thousands in India's economy. There's a good reason for each, but they are different reasons - the latter isn't out of charity. On the one hand, children need to survive, and become educated, and capable of supporting themselves in the modern world.* On the other hand, there also need to be jobs, and an economy to sustain them.

      India in particular refuses to be the manufacturing center for the developed world, perhaps seeing the coming robots taking all that work. Instead they focus on jobs that make sense for the modern world, and a space program is an important symbol of that. I say more power to them.

      *There are still plenty of places where outside assistance is needed to allow girls to attend school safely, and plenty where the local barbarians still prevent that in the name of religion - you know which one.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Hmm... by Harlequin80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Things like aid are never that cut and dried. For example did you know China still receives a large amount of foreign aid?

      If you have a look at the regions that foreign aid are deployed in India you will see it predominately sits either off the coast of india or in the Northwest a region that is still troubled by sectarian violence.

      However even ignoring that, your argument essentially says, "if you can launch space rockets the rest of your country should be more than good enough that you don't need aid", which if you think about what a country needs in order to develop itself you will see will not be the case. A developing country needs income from outside in order to fund cost developments such as roads, sanitation, schools etc. India is unable to fund those without building some kind of industry. Rockets and commercial rocket launches allow them to give somewhere for their top graduates to work, allows them to bring income into the country, and allows them to improve the life of some people.

      That said even with a successful rocket launch program the income it generates is barely a fraction of the money it needs to improve the quality of life of its wider population and it remains in need of help.

    4. Re:Hmm... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      India in particular refuses to be the manufacturing center for the developed world

      Correct. India refused to do that. Instead, that role was taken by China, which 30 years ago was poorer than India. Today, China is four times richer. China has much higher literacy, only a quarter as much infant mortality, a tenth as many underweight children, and is growing at more than twice the rate of India. India made that choice, but you are the first I have heard claim that it was a smart decision.

      Instead they focus on jobs that make sense for the modern world

      60% of Indians work as subsistence farmers on tiny family plots. They have a bloated civil service bureaucracy that employs twice as many as China's. Less than 1% of Indians work in tech, and less than 0.0001% work for the space agency.

    5. Re:Hmm... by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that aid is charity. It's not. It's leverage.

      Leverage? No, no - when I give you a dam, at a price I set, in a location of my choosing, and charge you interest. It's charity. (just ask the acolytes of Saint Mother Teresa if you don't believe me)

      And that warm feeling you get, free of charge, it's not me pissing in your pocket. Really.

    6. Re:Hmm... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China, which 30 years ago was poorer than India

      China has a decade or two of growth over India (and you can't believe a word the government approves about conditions in China - this is a totalitarian state with total information control, and many Potemkin Businesses). It may have been the right decision 30 years ago, but does anyone really doubt manufacturing is on its way out? China has had rough economic times for the past decade as American manufacturing returns to American robots (at least, if the Chinese stock market is any guide - hard to be certain).

      60% of Indians work as subsistence farmers on tiny family plots

      Sure - they have a long way to go (though they're far better off than a lot of the world), but real economic change takes generations, and they're far ahead of where they were 20 years ago. Eh, opinions vary, but I can at least say I've researched it considerably before putting my money where my mouth is.

      , and less than 0.0001% work for the space agency.

      Does the word "symbol" in my initial post confuse you? What about the word "inspiration"? As in "half the people my age I know who work in tech were inspired by NASA and science fiction". It's important for mankind that our reach exceed our grasp. It's important to see it's not just other nations who can do these things. Don't worry, as you point out most tech workers on local projects are doing much more practical things, but dammit, symbols are important.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Hmm... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      but real economic change takes generations, and they're far ahead of where they were 20 years ago

      Just like with post-tzarist Russia, it would have been a major feat for India to *not* be far ahead of where they were 20 years ago.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Hmm... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      India in particular refuses to be the manufacturing center for the developed world

      Correct. India refused to do that. Instead, that role was taken by China, which 30 years ago was poorer than India. Today, China is four times richer. China has much higher literacy, only a quarter as much infant mortality, a tenth as many underweight children, and is growing at more than twice the rate of India.

      Yes, but at what cost to the environment, and to what was left of civil society following the Cultural Revolution? Some of the Chinese I know are starting to figure out that Mr Deng didn't necessarily mean that the ONLY good thing is to be rich...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Hmm... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Yes, but at what cost to the environment, ...

      Nearly all developed countries went through a phase of rapid but dirty growth. China is starting to clean up faster than most others did, including America and Britain.

      ... and to what was left of civil society following the Cultural Revolution?

      The people running China today, are the political heirs of the faction that opposed the Cultural Revolution, and the current economic policies of China are the complete opposite of what the Cultural Revolution espoused.

    10. Re:Hmm... by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Does India still get aid? I know they used to get it in the 80s and 90s, but is that still the case?

    11. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "India tells UK: We don’t want the peanuts you give us in aid"

      http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/300338/India-tells-UK-We-don-t-want-the-peanuts-you-give-us-in-aid

    12. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "India tells UK: We don’t want the peanuts you give us in aid"

    13. Re:Hmm... by justaguy516 · · Score: 1

      Individual organizations in India still gets aid in the form of direct funding for (Non Govt. organizations or NGOs are mostly prohibited from taking money directly from external sources and the govt. has recently cracked down heavily on this) for individual projects, along with World Bank funding, etc. Some of these are Indian branches of foreign organizations, on which the rules are somewhat different.

      I remember there was some discussion in 2012 regarding British aid to India (as it turned out, it was to institutions such as Oxfam, etc.) and the Indian govt had said that by 2015 even this would be phased out. I know there has been a heavy crackdown recently with regards to any Indian organization receiving foreign money directly.

    14. Re:Hmm... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "China has a decade or two of growth over India"

      Yeah but I think that's kind of his point. There's no inherent reason China should have a decade or two of growth over India other than the fact that India decide to skip the whole industrial revolution phase and try and jump into competition with 1st world nations on services. It looked good at first, and then it failed, and it failed hard. Mumbai went from being theorised to be the number 1 world financial centre now to currently being sat around 53rd in the world behind such well known financial centres as Almaty, Kazakhstan and Casablanca, Morocco.

      The problem is that you can't have a services based economy without a great education system, and whilst India put a lot of money into marketing the propaganda that India has more graduates than the US has people or whatever, it turned out to be complete nonsense because your average India graduate was less well educated than your typical US high school student is at the age of 16.

      That's not to say India doesn't have some great universities, and doesn't churn out some great graduates - you only have to look to see how many end up in Silicon Valley in well paid jobs, but the number of actual good universities is pretty poor. For example both the QS and Times world university rankings don't see an Indian entry until 200+, so if India can't even create a university that's within the top 200 world universities then it's at a clear disadvantage in the services sector. Simply sending students abroad to university cannot produce the volume you need.

      China is basically pursuing the path of Western development at warp speed, it's going from an agrarian society, through an industrial revolution, to services in the space of 30 or so years - something that took the West a few hundred. India made a fundamental mis-step when it tried to skip that because you need the industrial step to create the necessary infrastructure and to provide the necessary income base.

      "but does anyone really doubt manufacturing is on its way out?"

      This is nonsense, it may be on it's way out, but you still need to produce those factories one way or another. We're nowhere near, not even close to robots that can self-assemble for any purpose. People are going to be essential in the field for a long time yet, and even as robots do take over some jobs, those robots are still drastically more expensive than 3rd world salaries workers. So whilst they may make sense for high tech manufacturing in the West where salaries are high, the business case just isn't there and wont be for some time in places like India and China. You can't just linger around until the tech does become available and then build all your factories with robots and have robots build your manufacturing base for otherwise India will be waiting another 50 years at which time the rest of the world will have forgotten about them completely.

      "China has had rough economic times for the past decade as American manufacturing returns to American robots (at least, if the Chinese stock market is any guide - hard to be certain)."

      You say you've researched things considerably before putting your money where your mouth is, but this doesn't even remotely resemble reality. The Chinese stock market has been in turmoil for the past week. not the past decade, and is now stabilising anyway. Over the last decade China has grown rapidly. It's growth has been between 7.5% at it's lowest, and 15% at it's highest since 2005. In contrast India has seen a low of 4% (barely better than developed economies) and a high of 10%. Chinese average growth has been far faster than India over the last decade. Yes Chinese growth is slowing but it's still much higher than Indian growth and that's more a sign of the fact that China has now grabbed most of the low hanging fruit and is having to compete on tougher terms. In India the low hanging fruit is still there, desperately waiting to be picked.

      "Does the word "symbol" in my initial post confuse you? What about the word "inspirati

    15. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India is a 2 Trillion Dollar economy. Any few millions it gets in aid are peanuts not worth even mentioning. If aid is stopped, it wouldnt make any difference in the overall scheme of things. Also India gives Billions in aid to countries like Afghanistan.
      India has a trade deficit with the US. So in a sense, India is aiding the US.

    16. Re:Hmm... by u19925 · · Score: 1

      Over its lifetime, Indian citizens have got less per capita aid than citizens of Europe, South America, and Africa continents. Even within Asia, it has received far lesser than an average and definitely way to less than Japan, middle east and east Asia nations. Last 4 year average is about USD 2.5 per person per year. Out of this, about 70% is a loan, which means that grant is only a 75 cents per person per year. If you are a US citizen, your out of pocket cost for grant to India is about nine cents (USA provided about 30 million grant in 2012) a year.

      Do you think everything nice happening in India is from 30 million dollar US grant? Indian economy is USD 2 trillion for reference.

  2. India helps USA with the Pakis by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    nukes v nukes. now launch 'em where they want 'em.

  3. 4 of the 5 have failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for the great free market.

  4. Relative terms by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    With the overall mass of five satellites being about 1,440 kg, this launch becomes the "heaviest commercial mission" ever undertaken by ISRO

    Falcon heavy payload to LEO is 53,000 kg. So one Falcon Heavy can send more mass than 36 ISRO rockets. To put it another way, one Falcon Heavy has launched more mass that all launched ISRO rockets.

    1. Re:Relative terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put it another way, one Falcon Heavy has launched more mass that all launched ISRO rockets.

      As of today, how much mass have Falcon Heavies launched into LEO, compared to how much total mass ISRO rockets have launched? Not a criticism of the Falcon Heavy, just making the point...

    2. Re:Relative terms by dryeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually the ISRO has launched infinite more payload then the Falcon Heavy, as the Heavy has not flown.
      Falcon Heavy also benefits from over 50 years of American space development whereas India had to bootstrap the ISRO on its own.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Relative terms by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      OK so the Falcon 9 that has launched. Falcon 9 Leo payload 13,150 kg. ISRO LEO payload 1,440 kg. Ratio 9 to 1. So four Falcon 9's equals ISRO program.

      India has had a ballistic missile program, which had help from the US, since the mid sixties. While not as advanced as the Apollo program they did not start from square one.

    4. Re:Relative terms by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Well, this article is about the PSLV, which puts satellites in Sun Synchronous orbits (polar orbit), something that I don't think the Falcon 9 has ever done. For comparison, there is the GLSV, putting 5000KG in LEO (2500 into GTO), not quite half of the 9. There's also the upgraded GLSV-III which will be able to put 8000KG in LEO once development is finished. It has made suborbital test flights.
      According to Wiki, the Indian civil space program is mostly independent of the missile program, especially early on. Can't really find much info for who helped them besides the GLSV starting out using some Russian motors. Remember after India did their nuke test in the early '70's, the west boycotted them.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Relative terms by justaguy516 · · Score: 1

      In terms of cost of insertion (USD per kg), ISRO blows all competition away. If, in the future, poor African or Latin American nations wish to put low earth satellites in orbit for remote sensing, weather or similar uses, they won't use Falcon 9.

    6. Re:Relative terms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Launch history Status : In Development

      from wikipedia .. It makes a difference ..

    7. Re:Relative terms by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      India has had a ballistic missile program, which had help from the US, since the mid sixties. While not as advanced as the Apollo program they did not start from square one.

      This is totally wrong. US was allied with Pakistan (a NATO ally, which was frequently at war with India), and in fact the US actually brought economic sanctions against india in early 70s. US-India relations have been extremely bad until the 21st century. India did purchase a number of rockets (not the tech, just the rockets), from USSR/Russia, but it would require some serious mental gymnastics to call it giving India missile/rocket tech. India also benefit from publicly available information on what works and what doesnt and did not have to go test everything, but I wouldnt take away the credit for it.

  5. Latest is just one survived by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly 'stellar', pardon the pun, that just one of the 5 made it too orbit.

    And yet people are talking this up like it is the greatest think since Elon Musk. Oh I see ...

  6. The PSLV can put about ~4,000 kg into LEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The PSLV can put about ~4,000 kg into LEO. 53000 / 4000 = 13.25. PSLV has probably put payload into higher orbit, so you might be technically correct.

  7. Elon Musk knows what Joe Public wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeh, but Elon Musk knows the public wants crashes and explosions and drama, not boring bits of electronics floating in space as per contracted delivery.

    Space is BORING! It needs a bit of excitement!

  8. India will become a great power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their technological build-up and advances are running at such a high pace, and the best thing is that they are friendly, unlike some of the others in the world today. The U.S. is trying to disrupt India's growth, and to some extent that of China, and spur conflict as usual by seeding weapons and weapon-deals into Pakistan, but I think India will prevail.

  9. Related news.... by Alsee · · Score: 1

    the PSLV is on a run of 25 consecutive successful launches

    Malaysia airlines is also on a run of 25 consecutive successful flights without losing a plane.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    1. Re:Related news.... by Argon · · Score: 1

      That certainly puts things in perspective since a rocket launch is no different from a flight taking off.