Indian Moon Mission Launched

hackerdownunder writes "India's maiden lunar mission (Chandrayaan-1) got off to a flying start today. Describing the launch as 'perfect and precise,' the chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), G Madhavan Nair, said that it would be 14 days before the satellite would enter into lunar orbit. Chandrayaan carries eleven payloads: five designed and developed in India, three from the European Space Agency, one from Bulgaria and two from NASA."

How things are turning out.

The Third World is exploring space, developing scientists and engineers, and developing their economies.

Here in the US, we're developing our military, discouraging the study of science and engineering, discouraging all rational thought (God did it!), spending resources on some nebulous terrorist threat the will come some day (or so we're told), and developing industries based on chance and moving money around.

I wonder which society has better long term prospects for its people, economy, and Government?

Re:How things are turning out.

India is not / no longer part of the third world. Wake up and smell the coffee. It is Asia that is going to rule the world this century. China and India are both in a race into space, both large players in the world economy (outsourcing of technical staff to india, industry to China). Besides, India and China have 1 billion+ innhabitants each so a third of the world population is living there.. Where America fails to deliver payload to the ISS (where Russia is succeeding) Asia is quickly catching up. The whole world should turn their economy towards renewable energy and towards Asia instead of Oil and America. As european i don't understand where the american arrogance (and ignorance) comes from.. No flamebait intended

Re:How things are turning out.

India is not / no longer part of the third world.

I agree with everything you said, excepted the quote above. India *is* part of the Third World in all the definitions I know:

- Not aligned with either the West or East in Cold War
- Not a country with high HDI (Human Development Index)
- Is a "developing country"

But maybe you have another definition for it?

Re:How things are turning out.

Here in the US, we're developing our military,

Are you really trying to separate India's civilian rocketry program from their defense spending?

Re:How things are turning out.

The moon shot is one way to address the poverty. There is a huge market to launch payloads into the orbit. If India uses the prestige created by the moonshot to grab a significant stake in that market that will bring in money and pay for the infrastructure projects.

The idea that India should focus on poverty first and eschew other areas has shackled the country for many decades. Nehru and his daughter followed that philosophy. Grandson Rajiv broke out in 1984 but was very naive and reversed himself by 1988. It took Narasimha Rao and his finance minister Manmohan Singh to really put India on the right path. BJP govt instilled the country with some pride. India has to become the world leader in a few areas and then use the wealth it generates to alleviate the poverty.

Re:How things are turning out.

And yet the space program here in the US generated a number of clearly documented benefits [elmscoalition.org] to society and the economy. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget [slashdot.org]">wikipedia:

Other statistics and confirmation that "Space pays" may also be found in the 1976 Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc. reports ("The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending: Preliminary Executive Summary.", April 1975. Also: "Relative Impact of NASA Expenditure on the Economy.", March 18, 1975) and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined just 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight year period (1976-1984) and found more than:

• $21.6 billion in sales and benefits;
• 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved,and;
• $355 million in federal corporate income taxes

Now, that said, it doesn't mean that the Indian program will be nearly as successful. But it does point out that these benefits are real and have been documented. Since some of the benefits are jobs creation, this can go towards benefiting people other than the upper class.

Re:How things are turning out.

Someone might even go as far as to say that investing in high tech will create jobs that will pay (through taxes) for all the feel good social services.

You know. Give a man unemployment pay and you feed him for a month. Teach a man to design radiation hardened telecom transceivers and you feed him (and 100 others) for life.

Re:How things are turning out.

...Give a man unemployment pay and you feed him for a month. Teach a man to design radiation hardened telecom transceivers and you feed him (and 100 others) for life.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend his days in a boat, drinking beer and getting sunburned.

Re:How things are turning out.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you diminish your fish market share.

Re:How things are turning out.

Whats with morons bringing up the poverty side of things everytime a scientific achievement of India is brought up? Yes there is poverty and Homeless in India. I see hobos in the UK too. There are more people in that country, so the ratio of Hobos is more. Whats to be appreciated is this - With the kind of pressure that a democratic government faces, imagine the budget pressures an organization like ISRO has? Even NASA is buckling because of budget cuts. If ISRO can achieve things despite poverty, despite such tight budgets, its a much bigger achievement! Remember, this is not China we are talking about where scientific progress can sometimes come at the cost of the people. India is a democracy - Lives are being improved. I used to live in whats a slum - in my childhood. Millions like me got a chance to improve because of an education system, flawed as it is, that is cheap. Dont deride the scientific achievements in face of other difficulties the country faces. The country thrives despite adversity, and sometimes because of adversity!

Re:How things are turning out.

Poverty itself isn't the problem, it's inherited poverty that's the problem.

"Fair" doesn't mean "everyone succeeds"
"Fair" means everyone gets a decent chance to succeed and those who get things right do succeed more.
You can still get unlucky on a fair dice role and be screwed.

"Unfair" only kicks in when you go for multiple generations and players start with less chips and the game loaded against them.

Problem is that almost no societies are fair, they either remove the ability of those capable of doing well from benefiting from it for the sake of the losers or alternatively screw the kids of people who've done badly for the benefit of the winners of the last round and their kids.

Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing

India's economy has turned around due to technology outsourcing to India by the rest of the world. This outsourcing started happening when Indians began showing the outside world that Indians aren't just the hungry clamouring mobs always shown on TV. As the world realized this, they began to see value in sending work to India. By accomplishing things like Chandrayaan, or building the Tata Nano, etc, Indians demonstrate to the world their talents and abilities, which increases the world's willingness to trade and work with India, creating jobs and economic growth in the country. Some Indians commenting here are unfortunately the backward navel-gazing types, who will never understand the basis for economic growth and alleviation of poverty. They still think in the most primitive backward terms about how to bring development, prosperity and relief to the masses. The lost opportunities and economic stagnation of the past 50 years under the social welfare state show how such narrow mindsets can wreak havoc on a country. The answer lies in Indians showing each other and the world how to be achievers, instead of just beggars forever clamouring with their palms outstretched.

Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing

Cut down version of the above:

They made it easier for companies to outsource to india and invested in education so they had something to sell(labour).

wrong

you have failed to create social welfare state. europe has succeeded.

you sound like a holistic economist, even a neocon republican. those days are at an end.

this recent crisis have shown us how dangerous unwatched, ungoverned, unregulated capitalism can be. entire world economy brought down by a handful of rogue megacorporations juggling funds in united states.

that wont happen again.

Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing

The lost opportunities and economic stagnation of the past 50 years under the social welfare state show how such narrow mindsets can wreak havoc on a country.

This (often repeated) story about "lost opportunities during first 50 years of India" etc is a myth. It shows a lack of understanding of post independence history of India.

When India became independent there were groups of politicians who repeatedly argued against setting up of national laboratories and research institutions that exist in India right now. They argued that there is no need to "waste" money in those for a country like India, since one can always buy things from outside. If India had followed that approach it would be society with significant problems with poverty and related social tensions right now (If you need proof just look at the state of development of society in the country which is neighbor to India, which became independent during the same time).

It is ridiculous to not to notice significant success of poverty reduction and increase in living standard in a complex society like India without creating major social tensions (if you do not know - famines with repeated crop failures were common in pre-independence India). A lot of the credit for this goes to development of strong independent research and industrial base during the early stages (Indian space program is a part of this).

Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing

Ha! the wonderful belief that free market capitalism will solve all the worlds problems and mitigate poverty!

Do you really think that private corporations with no compulsions other than "shareholder value" will consider the good of the poor?

The private corporations don't have to care. That's the point of capitalism. The whole thing is based on the idea that if you have something I want and I have something you want, we negotiate until we find some mutually beneficial exchange which leaves us both better off. The crucial point is that I am only worried about my own well-being.

Do you really think that you and I would be better off if we sent our two things in to some central government committee, which would evaluate how much they were worth, how much we needed them, and how much we deserved, then take a cut to fund the system before handing us our Fair Share? I would much rather deal directly, TYVM.

That many large corporations (such as my employer) make correspondingly large donations to charity is also something to bear in mind, but the point is that it's not required, and the system ensures that there are advantages anyway.

The problems that we are seeing now are due to some misguided attempts to mess with the workings of the system. It's complex, with all sorts of feedback, and most of its failure modes are quite spectacularly nasty for those affected. I just hope They can reboot it in time: http://newsbiscuit.com/article/world-leader-agree-rescue-plan-turn-all-the-computers-off-and-then-turn-them-back-on-again-382 [newsbiscuit.com]

Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing

The private corporations don't have to care. That's the point of capitalism. The whole thing is based on the idea that if you have something I want and I have something you want, we negotiate until we find some mutually beneficial exchange which leaves us both better off. The crucial point is that I am only worried about my own well-being.

What about the young, the old, the poor, the sick and the crippled who have nothing you want (goods, services, money) but need food, shelter and medicine?

Should your precious Free Market remove them from the face of the earth?

When you grow old and/or sick, and your savings are rendered worthless when the great Free Market has one of its funny turns, should you remove yourself from the face of the earth, or should the Free Market do it as you lie down and starve to death?

Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing

What about the young, the old, the poor, the sick and the crippled who have nothing you want (goods, services, money) but need food, shelter and medicine?

Ah, but they do have something I want, and that you want, too: Human dignity worth preserving.

Which brings us right back to the original question: What's a better way of getting what you want? Finding someone who needs your help, and helping them? Or referring them to a government bureaucracy that decides who needs help and how much, and takes your money for that purpose? Are you really convinced that the government does a better job of spending your charity dollars than you would?

Re:How things are turning out.

Science and god are opposites. ... Of course, if you like to believe in magical sky wizards, please go ahead, but don't dare bring your beliefs on anyone else in the world. They are your personal beliefs and you should be entitled to that, but not to bring that upon other people.

I think you're being a little "black and white" on this topic.

Science and god aren't opposites. It's not either science or god. Science and god speak to completely different endeavors and areas of human interest. Science attempts to explain the physical phenomenon around us. Religion contemplates mans place in the universe, his role in it, and the "meaning" of our actions and lives.

Science tells us the big bang happened. If you don't believe in the big bang, that's your problem. However, there's nothing that stops you from believing in the big bang, and the notion that god was the prime force behind it -- essentially, creationism but on a much huger scale than typically explained by religions.

There are many educated, intelligent people, who are completely capable of believing that god exists and not have to worry about any incompatibility in these two beliefs. It's the belief that either science or religion are true and there's no room for them to coexist which is the problem.

At present, science can't disprove the notion of god. In fact, god and all that implies takes over where science ends. Believing that some divine power caused the big bang isn't irrational, it just requires a leap of faith. That leap of faith, however, doesn't need to be at odds with science. I know astrophysicists who accept all of the physics on face value and still believe that, ultimately, god is out there. Their belief doesn't in any way affect their objectivity behind what the science tells us -- their religion supports their spirituality and morality, and their science allows them to investigate physical reality.

And, before anyone accuses me of defending the concept of religion from the perspective of a religious person -- I was raised protestant, spent about 20 years being an atheist, and now buddhism informs my morality and world view, but I don't actually believe in a god per se. But, I don't believe that all people who do believe are a bunch of crazy wing nuts who are gullible idiots.

Cheers

Only $ 80 Mn

At around Rs. 400 Crore / USD 80 Million, it must be the cheapest unmanned moon mission and.... 1st post

mission control transcript

"This is Chandrayaan-1 we have a problem."

"You have reached mission control. Your call is very important to us. Please hold and the next available representative will be with you shortly."

"This is Chandrayaan-1 we are losing thrust and are off course."

"Remember, mission control is here for you. Have you heard about our latest service pack upgrades and special licensing agreements? Press one now if you'd like to hear more. If not, continue holding and your call will be answered in the order recieved. Thank you for calling mission control!"

14 days is kind of slow

Nasa missions took three days. But life support was important.

The slowest moon mission was an ESA moon mission that took 14 months to reach the moon via ion-drive. It cost very little in fuel.

Re:f1r5t m00nlanding

About 18.2 minutes later, ISRO Chairman G Madhavan Nair declared the launch successful which sent over a 1000 space scientists into a bout of jubilation. ( Watch )

Yeah that party sounds like it would be 'off the hook'!

Re:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry

Then how are you going to help those poor people? Give them free money and food so they'll continue to do nothing and further your poverty problem?

How about actually setting up a sensible education system, then a sensible industrial sector, and then a sensible R&D sector for future industries; so that people can be productive and build wealth for your country?

Doesn't that sound a lot like what India is trying to do?

Re:Great - More to know about moon but what about

Not that old chestnut again.
We've had 6 manned missions and a few probes to the moon, all commissioned by a handful of governments. Our oceans are being surveyed constantly, by both satellites and survey ships (including submersibles) sponsored by governments, research establishments and commercial operators alike.
The moon missions just generate more publicity (ignoring the outliers like Jacques Cousteau).