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.
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.
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.
> 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.