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.
Because they have all those sacred cows in the roads.
And if you can launch a satellite into geostationary, you can launch a MIRV'd ICBM against any really large country that might threaten you.
Best Slashdot Co
As they say, after partition one country got its flag on the moon while the other has a moon on its flag.
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.
I say cut off their aid money, if they've got so much laying around to spend on this.
Time to put the begging bowl away guys.
$93M in 2013 – that's not really much. And you know what? India has been asking us – the US and Britain – to stop. They don't want it. They don't need it. India really is quite wealthy. Yes, there's a lot of poverty. That's what most people seem to want to see for some reason.
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.
You need to put that in context of the size of India's economy. Most of that "aid" is about buying influence via NGOs. India says that it does NOT want aid and calls it "peanuts".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
"Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money"
"We do not require the aid. It is a peanut in our total development spending."
US aid to India is even smaller - about a third to a sixth.
> India was a fucking jungle before the white man colonized it
India had roughly 29% of world GDP before colonialism. It was 3% after colonialism ended. Without colonialism, India would have industrialized earlier, perhaps after Japan (which almost ended up in China's position with the Black Ship episode, but got its reprieve with US civil war).
> How far ahead has it gotten for the 60 years of independence?
Quite a bit actually. The development indices were quite stagnant while the British were in India. Every one of them shot up after they left. Obviously there is still ground to be covered.
> Have you stopped gang-raping your women already? No? How come?
Show me one statistic that says rape in India is higher per 100K, than it is in US or elsewhere. It isn't, even if you account for high under-reporting. The press had its fun highlighting anecdotes, but failed to make a scholarly case. Rape is a problem everywhere. The claim that India is a special case cannot *statistically* be made.
> 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 :-)
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)
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.
> 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.