Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISRO Successfully Launches Satellite Into Geostationary Orbit

Posted by samzenpus on from the to-the-stars-and-beyond dept.

vasanth writes: Indian Space Research Organization (Isro) on Thursday cleared all doubts on its cryogenic capabilities, successfully launching the Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV-D6), placing GSAT-6, a 2,117kg communication satellite in orbit. The GSLV D-6 is the second consecutive successful launch of the GSLV series with indigenous cryogenic upper stage. ISRO had on January 5, 2014 launched GSLV D-5, after a similar attempt failed in 2010. For the country, ISRO perfecting the cryogenic engine technology is crucial, as precious foreign exchange can be saved by launching communication satellites on its own. Currently ISRO flies its heavy communication satellites by European space agency Ariane. ISRO has already perfected its Polar Launching Vehicle for launching lighter satellites, with decades of success stories. It has already put 45 foreign satellites of 9 nations into orbit. ISRO is to put 9 satellites in space using the PSLV launcher for the United States in 2015-2016.

4 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. Hey India! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Welcome to the 1960s! Now work on municipal drinking water and sewer systems for your citizens instead of playing Space Cadet, mkay?

    1. Re:Hey India! by jma05 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was the world doing Mars missions in the 60s? India's space program makes money for the country. Think of it as one way to fund those municipal services you speak of. It was not done for bragging rights. India has already positioned itself as the outsourcing destination for satellite launches. The one capability it lacked was the launch of heavy satellites. That is fixed now and it can compete with European launch markets.

  2. Re:Certainly a great achievement by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is quite easy to find per launch numbers. The GSLV MK 3 costs $36m per launch. At 5000 kg GTO payload, the competitors would be China's Long March 2-3-4, India's ULV, Russia's R-500 Proton, Japan's H-II, IIA & IIB, US's Atlas V, Europe's Ariane 5 and Ariane 6, US's Delta IV, China's Long March 5 and SpaceX's (US) Falcon Heavy. The ones current available, and their costs are Long March 2-3-4 (?), Zenit ($90m), UR-500 Proton ($100m). For the sake completeness, the remaining ones with much higher payload support, and their cost: H-II-IIA-IIB ($200m), Atlas V ($100m), Delta IV ($435m).

    Someone else will have to run development costs (the GSLV MK3 costs $400m (the cryo engine was a real cost sink), not including the earlier versions and development cost of PSLV). But overall, it should be cheaper that outsourcing, especially when your costs are much lower than everyone else, and you can launch satellites for other countries.

    Also keep in mind that, yesterday's launch is supposed to have unspecified military uses (probably just communications). It is not possible to outsource your military sats to other nations. Plus if it comes to it, you can claim part ownership of mars and moon (why do you think every country wants their flag on it). Plus, you will need most of the rocket tech for your missiles anyways. Add to this that your money doesnt end up in another country, and you are giving it to the people in the country (you will be consuming some of the top human resources in your country, and very tiny portion of the raw materials used in your country, but it is still a net benefit for you)

  3. Re:Indians. by jma05 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > There was no 'GDP' before the advent of modern economy from the West.

    You can say the same about History. That does not mean that we cannot look into the past beyond the origin of its current method.

    There is an entire field of study, Quantitative Macroeconomic History, that estimates historical GDPs. Angus Madison did pioneering work in the area

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    > Everyone was growing and eating their own food, including peasantry in India.

    That's a rather naive understanding of history. Indians were trading with the West for millinea, with spices, gold and gem stones. That was the whole point behind the accidental, and even an unwanted discovery of Americas (seen as a block in the route for centuries) by Europe, because the Arabs blocked land trade routes.

    Yes, everyone was growing their own food because shipping was not at all reliable for managing food on stormy sea lanes. But the ancient world was doing plenty of trading for lighter materials and luxuries.

    > What 'statistic', if you look at 'statistics', India is lower than Sweden. Yeah, that Sweden, where a condom breaking during consensual sex is a 'rape'.

    True. There is no uniform definition of rape, which makes comparisons difficult. Sweden definition is indeed absurd. And no, I am not arguing that it is better to be a woman in India than in Sweden. I am however arguing that the status of women in India is no different than women in countries with similar socio-economic development.

    > In India rape isn't 'underreported', it is a part of the culture. Rape is not reported in the jungle, it is the way of life.

    Hogwash. You are speaking from a superficial understanding based on press reports with little understanding of India. There is no codified cultural support for rape, apart from being a patriarchal society from still being an agrarian culture. If there was, Indians would not have raucously shut down the capital for weeks in response for a rape. That's the story. Not the rape. What is the strongest response of the US civil society for its worst rape case? The few rural bumpkins who rape in India are no more representative of India, than are gang bangers in ghettos representative of US.