Slashdot Mirror
ISRO Successfully Launches Satellite Into Geostationary Orbit
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.
India does not do its space program for pride reasons. Its control room is rather unglamorous. Its space program already turns a profit, as an outsourcing entity. I read during the Mars Orbiter news that ISRO can hire rocket scientists for as low as $12K (that's cheaper than Indian software engineers who work for multinationals in India, although as government jobs, they probably have better long-term benefits and job security). It can be a LOT cheaper for ISRO to develop a space program than it costs NASA. India has some unique properties. Its manufacturing is underdeveloped, but its knowledge economy is far more advanced than its per capita figures would normally allow it to be. ISRO is perhaps simply taking advantage of that.
> because at this point, with the number of competitors, I don't believe it.
There aren't that many competitors and India is already deep in the fray in the standard launch market (it is not a hypothetical). This vehicle allows it to enter the heavier launch market that eluded it so far. I can see India dominating the launch market to the same extent that it does with the software labor market... on cost propositions for routine, straight-forward work (its Mars mission was the cheapest inter-planetary mission ever - $70m). Comparing costs does not work.
> although as government jobs, they probably have better long-term benefits and job security
That's true. My ex-boss worked in ISRO from 1990s to 2009. The pay is pretty good, especially since about 1998 onwards for a Masters degree in any engineering discipline. Not to mention nearly free housing and subsided food and either on premise schooling for your kids or very good scholarships depending on the city you are stationed. After working for few (5? 7?) years, you can get sabbatical to pursue specialization in top notch universities in India or if your boss really likes you even in UK or Western Europe :-). My ex-boss quit and moved to a private engineering firm because his experience at ISRO was highly prized pay-wise, and he wanted to take up a more risky "get fired anytime" private job to bosst his retirement savings :-)
My uncle worked in a similar govt agency, and they had subsidized accomodation, nearly free food for self & spouse (housing quarters had agency run cafetaria for empoyees and family), schools and even an amphitheater for weekly movie shows. It all made up for about 30% less pay compared to a private firm. Also no need to worry about getting fired - unless you shoot off your mouth against your boss, you can be sure of walking out with the retirement gift wrist watch at 58 :-)
Some problems with your analogy... a porsche is $800/month or $26/day. Feeding your kid is say, $20/day. That means a porsche is worth 130% of what feeding a kid is. So a father who polishes his porsche and lets his one kid starve is indeed problematic.
In India, the space program is profitable, but let's ignore that for the sake of your argument and assume it doesn't have any income and only has expenses. The space agency costs $300m/yr or less than $1m/day. Feeding everyone costs $20b/day or $20,000m/day. That means the space agency is worth 0.005% of what feeding everyone would be. It's a bad analogy to compare a figure of 130% to 0.005%. If you want a clean analogy, it would be like wasting 1/10th of a penny per day, or if the father once a week lost a single penny while he struggles to pay $20/day.
India already has a food subsidy program of $60b/yr (or $164m/day), and a school program of $30b/yr which feeds children (or $82m/day). The socialist/communist approach of "feeding everyone" by a central govt. is impractical and should be used as a safety-net for the bottom 5% of society. Even the U.S. would struggle to feed everyone, as $20/day per person is $2.5 trillion dollars with the U.S. population and $12.5 trillion with India's population. The entire U.S. GDP is $17trillion, and that's _private_ wealth, not federal revenue. The IRS can only seize maybe 20% of that figure, or $3.4 trillion. So the capitalist approach of affording _opportunity_ to make wealth instead of _giving_ food is the only sustainable approach. Having a space agency and the large industrial complex of spinoff jobs that feed into it is a great way to create opportunity.
I know you're trolling and it's a waste to write out this thoughtfully and explain everything, but hopefully some other readers will benefit.