India Brings Back Orbiting Satellite to Earth

bharatm writes "In a pathbreaking event heralding its arrival as a space power with capability to recover an orbiting satellite, India today successfully brought back a spacecraft to earth, giving a new impetus to the proposed manned mission to space in the next decade."

Re:Now all they need to do....

[paeanblack]

Is test an ASAT missile.

They just did...in true non-violent style, no less.

Not retrieval

[Dan East]

When I first read the headline and blurb I thought India retrieved a satellite. As in how the Space Shuttle can go up, retrieve a satellite that otherwise is not designed for reentry, and bring it back to earth. This craft was designed for reentry in the first place, so they didn't really "bring" it back - they commanded it to return on its own.

Dan East

Regarding Outsourcing

[unother]

Ya know, I just had an epiphany on outsourcing to India...

We all know the popular press about issues regarding process, quality, et al. with Indian Outsourcing. However: I recall that once upon a time, Japanese manufacturing was the butt of many a joke until the early 1970s.

Just saying, I would suggest that any smirking in the direction of the Indian Outsourcing phenomenon is a little premature because I imagine it is inevitable that these issues will eventually be worked out.

Re:Priorities

[Paulrothrock]

I think it would be better if they gave up their nuclear weapons research [fas.org] rather than their space program. Better to cancel a destructive program than a constructive program to alleviate poverty.

An anonymous troll wrote (Feed your Children, IN)

[gd23ka]

"Feed your children India!
(Score:0, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22, @09:16AM (#17709874)
why dont these heartless hindus use some of their engineers to design sanitation systems, water purification plants, food preservation technologies etc? This sorry excuse of a nation has the world's largest concentration of hungry people without access to clean water or toilet facilities. Shame on them!"

He does have a point however. "The World's Largest Democracy" (tm)
India spends a lot of effort on developing military capabilities. Feeding their people is obviously not a priority.

Re:Priorities

[unother]

Yes, but you are presuming a causal linkage between the two if you suggest this (i.e. Money for Space = No Money for Food for the Poor).

I'm certain that a few things are on the mind of those who advocate the Space Program for India:

1. India's borders with the Happy Happy Joy Joy Club members, Pakistan and China
2. "Rising Tide" Theory (lifts all boats)
3. Ensuring India has its own capacity to commence further Industrialization, removing some of its dependencies on "First World" technology and power.

In the end, I think India is reaching for the stars to make sure there is a way for those people to be fed.

Re:An anonymous troll wrote (Feed your Children, I

[unother]

India spends a lot of effort on developing military capabilities. Feeding their people is obviously not a priority.

Again: see my first post [slashdot.org] on this.

It's well and good for us Westerners to wag our fingers at them, but we're not the ones sharing borders with their potentially hostile neighbors (Pakistan, China).

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there are millions [fhfh.org] of undernourished people in the U.S. too. It would have been nice if our government fed it's citizens before acting on all of it's "world-stage aspirations."

Re:Priorities

[unother]

I'm sorry, but that's silly. Money is not a "zero-sum game". You are thinking of "money" in a pure balance-sheet, consumption-level sense. Remember, money is a carrier of value, a representation. If the value of a thing increases ten-fold, do you still pay the same in money for it?

As an example, let's say that by India being able to launch its own satellites it is able to improve its communications grids and make great savings in the cash sense, without relying on Western launchpads and satellites.

Don't you think they're saving money in the long run? Don't you also suppose that by saving that money, they can re-invest those savings in programs that assist the poor?

Re:Sweet

[SmellTheCoffee]

Yes...a troll found a perfect moment to troll. Any news on India and there is a always a stereotypical response like cheap labour, not-enough-food-to-eat.
BTW, what you call cheap labour (in terms of U.S or any western currency) is a high enough pay for middle-class Indians. With around 30,000 rupees, average Indian family can live a life equivalent to a life of a average US family with income of around 70K. And that estimate is a conservative one...most engineers I know get paid around 25,000-30,000 rupees right out of college these days.

Re:Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

[udderly]

I do volunteer work in the inner-city and in rural Appalachia so I've seen first-hand the things that your link indicates, but the poverty in these places simply does not compare to what one will see in some of the places (India, Mexico, Ecuador, Bolivia, Pakistan) that I've been.

While anyone can cook up stats about hunger, there is a simple test that can indicate the true level of hunger in an area: offer a half-eaten sandwich (or whatever) to someone in the street and see the reaction. In the inner-city area near us where I serve, that will at least get you cussed out, if not get the crap beaten out of you. However, we have had six-year-old children at an outdoor restaurant in Oaxaca, Mexico, gratefully eat the last bite of our salad. Similar results in the countries listed above.

The fact is that there is hunger in some instances in the US, but it is more often due to parents' mental illness or drug/alcohol use than to a general lack of food availability. Often there is enough money but it is squandered on other things. In many cases in rural Appalachia, we have gone to houses where the kids truly do not have enough to eat and yet the parents have Marlboros (not even generics) and/or satellite TV. There's not much that can be done when parents care more about smoking and television than feeding their kids. Also, have you never heard of the Hunger/Obesity Paradox [google.com]. Read up, becuase in America, the poorest kids are also the fattest.

Yes, there is work to be done in the US but it's mostly treatment and/or education. Your post, however, glibly trivializes the dire circumstances that exist in many parts of the world where there simply is not enough food.

Uncomparable budgeting.

[splutty]

I'm very sure that the budgeting issues between these two activities are so insanely far apart, that any sort of comparison would be impossible to make.

Tossing a rocket into space with a vehicle built for re-entry would be a lot easier and cost a lot less than making sure everyone in a country containing 1.2 billion people will be fed properly.

Are they mutually exclusive?

[mangu]

I wouldn't want to be the one to try to sell that to people who don't have enough food.

Let's see, how much food is wasted in building a satellite? Unless the rocket burns flour or vegetables, I can't see how not launching it would contribute to feeding anyone.

Or do you mean the money spent in the program should be used to buy food and give it to the needy? In that case, perhaps not launching one rocket would ease the hunger of a few million people. Today. But what about tomorrow? How do you propose to end once and for all the chronic problems of malnutrition in India? The Indian space program is giving their people a future, something that's infinitely more valuable than a plate of food.

Epiphany, huh?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Epiphany, huh? Actually, if you read even popular press, you'll see that countries such as India and China are commonly referred to as "developing" countries. This means that some day soon they are widely expected to be on par with other "developed" countries such as Japan, South Korea, etc. If this sort of thing interests you, pick up the Economist or a similar magazine and you'll get some estimates about when this might occur.

On another tangent, if you go back in time a little further, you'll learn that Japanese manufacturing was considered world-class after their battleships knocked out most of the Russian west fleet around the turn of the century and was continued to be considered so until the Americans came knocking thirty-some years later.

I think you're right about Americans being arrogant, however. There are a lot of other people smarter and harder working than the average American out there, and global trade doesn't care if you think you're superior if someone else can do the same job better for less money.

Re:Priorities

[geobeck]

...before a gov't starts acting on all of their world-stage aspirations, shouldn't they feed their citizens?

Let's go back to 1499. European countries were launching voyages of exploration, seeking out new trade routes and discovering new countries. Guess who else was doing that? China. Until their government decided that they should fix their problems at home before spending excessive resources on maritime exploration.

So where is China today compared to Europe in terms of domestic poverty? If you're going to stay at home until your domestic problems are solved, you're going to stay at home forever.

Re:Priorities

[be-fan]

So after they feed their people today, what do they do tomorrow? Welfare is a luxury for countries who have enough money that they don't need to make hard choices between economic progress and social well-being. For a developing nation, spending money on welfare for today's population is a sure way to perpetuate poverty to future generations. Investing in the economy, on the other hand, at least gives the hope that fewer people in the future will need welfare, and moreover that the government will be able to better afford welfare for those who still do need it.

There is also something to be said for the importance of a nation having ambitions on the world stage. Let me use as an example Bangladesh, where my parents were born, and which I still visit on occasion. Bangladesh has no ambition as a nation. Bengalis have no national pride to speak of, aside from a generally provincial sense of moral superiority. Their poverty is something that doesn't just manifest itself in the lack of food on the table, but something that infects their very mindset. They accept the state of affairs in their country, the political corruption and the social instability, because they lack the pride to believe that they are entitled to something better. Of the various problems the country faces, this lack of pride is far worse than flooding or hunger or disease combined. India presents a very stark contrast. If you look at the villages of India, you'll see the same hunger and disease you see in the villages of Bangladesh. But Indians have a great pride in their country, and in its long history of civilization. Their ambition drives them to improve their economy, invest in their infrastructure, and preserve their democracy. It is this ambition that makes it likely that in another couple of generations, India won't have to choose between improving their country and feeding the hungry. There is no similar hope for Bangladesh.

Re:Priorities

[egomaniac]

For a more complete picture, you need to realise that there are almost as many unemployed in India as there are people in the US. So yes, that money could have been put to better use. I could start many, many businesses, even industries, with $900 million.

When people spend money, it's not like the money goes into a giant pit which they then light on fire. The money goes to scientists, lab technicians, programmers, janitors, and countless other employees directly or indirectly involved in the space program. Most of the money probably remained in India, but even the portion that was used to purchase foreign parts and labor isn't "gone" -- in a global economy, spreading money around often benefits everyone.

You could start an entire industry with $900 million dollars? You don't say! Maybe that's why that is exactly what India is doing with it -- the space industry, to be precise.

Hypocrite!

[mangu]

A plate of food for a starving indian child, which of course you are not hence the cavalier attitude, is infinitely more valuable than putting rockets in space

So, if everything should be done to feed the hungry right now, without regard to the future, what are you doing in Slashdot? Sell your computer, give up your internet service, spend *EVERYTHING* to feed a starving Indian child!!

Why are you scoundrels unable to feed half your children

You seem to be under the impression that I'm an Indian. I'm not.

Re:Priorities

[AKAImBatman]

The number of people that could be employed by a space program is dwarfed by the number of people who could be employed in, for example, car or mass transit manufacturing

It's not that easy. Mass Transit manufacturing would leave a company reliant upon the government for its funding, same as a Space Program. Car Manufacturing sounds like a good idea, but it's very difficult to compete with foreign imports. Something that Maruti Udyog [wikipedia.org], Hindustan Motors [wikipedia.org], and Bajaj Tempo [wikipedia.org] (now "Force Motors") can tell you.

What a space program does is that it provides funding for the development of new materials, manufacturing, and general industrial capability that can then be turned around and poured into the production of consumer goods like Cars and Mass Transit. Those industrial and technology bases can then be used used to close the gap between the local capabilties and the much greater industrial/tech bases of foreign countries. Closing that gap leads to a better ability to compete. Competing leads to more wealth generated, and more wealth generated leads to more jobs and entrepreneurials required to sustain and/or increase that wealth.

This idea of pouring the wealth directly onto the poor is a very heartwarming sentiment, but it tends to do much less to actually solve these people's problems than if the money is spent on programs that make use of profitable business ventures.

Re:Priorities

[Telvin_3d]

They are not going to give up the nuclear program in favor of the space program because from their government's point of view they are the SAME PROGRAM.

Do you really think that the US government's interest in the space program in the 50's and 60's had anything to do with actually going to space? To a small extent it was a nice prestige project, but that was just a nice spin off from the real research. The difference between a 'rocket' and a 'missile' is nothing but a name. You will note that once they had learned to make really reliable rockets (missiles), the funding for NASA almost completely dried up.

Same thing for India now. They have nukes and now all they need is a better way to get them from point A to point B. The difference between 'we launched a satellite and brought it back to earth' and 'we launched a nuke and dropped it where we wanted it' is only the payload.

Re:Priorities

[ChrisA90278]

Call me old-fashioned, but before a gov't starts acting on all of their world-stage aspirations, shouldn't they feed their citizens?

The problem with this argument is in India that experiment only cost maybe 30 cents per person. Even if the total cost was $500M there are so many people that when you spread the cost out it becomes affordable. Conversely if you took the money and used it to buy food it would work out to less than US$1 per poor person.

Giving money or food away does not address the root cause of poverty

The other thing is that the Indian government did not simply burn up the money. The spent it all. If a space experiment costs $500M then all of that $500 went to some scientific institution, university or the like. Al places that they need to support. Money spent on space is not spent in space it is spent on the ground and goes back into the economy

Re:Priorities

[metlin]

It is a valuable deterrent, especially given that India is surrounded by China on one side and Pakistan on the other - both of which are quite trigger happy.

Secondly, India has a no first use policy, which Pakistan does not share (I am not sure if China has a no first use policy).

Given the region, I'd say it's better to have a deterrent than none.

Besides, if there were no deterrent, there would be more frequent skirmishes and the like which would cost more money in the long term. With this, folks are afraid of any serious incursions because it could escalate into something bigger. So, you save more lives, money and resources that may have been spent on war.

It's not a zero sum game.

Re:Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

[udderly]

Umm, the biggest problem in India is not production but storage and distribution.

Umm, well then use the money to build infrastructure.

And oh, these satellite thingys have helped improve agriculture by weather forecasting, geological and geographical surveys, communications etc. Amongst other things, such as education, industrialization, early weather warning systems and the like.

Good point. Seriously, I hadn't really considered that. I wonder if going to the moon helps too.

But hey, you go ahead. In your total idiocy and lack of vision, sit there mocking at technological achievements which are the crux for the foundation and development of any society.

Way to go, Strawman! I never mocked technological achievements. Not once.

What sheer stupidity. Denying a man his dream is the worst kind of sin one could commit.

Such an asinine statement, that it doesn't really need to be refuted...but what the heck. A man (or woman) doesn't have the right to fulfill his/her dream on public money. Public money is presumably for the public good. If it is his/her dream, let him come up with or raise the cash like Jeff Bezos.

But hey, if the gutter smells wonderful to you, who am I to stop you from sniffing at it. Those that can dream will dream.

Dream on then, Oh Great Strawman Dreamer!

Re:Is it either/or?

[udderly]

So, how about the USA sharing with Third World nations some of that science? Why should a poor country like India have to reinvent the wheel when so much food surplus is sitting in warehouses in the rich countries?

I couldn't agree more.

Less developed countries do export cash crops. But rich farmers are the true benefactors of the "Green Revolution". Poor farmers cannot afford the patented seeds, tractors, fuel, and everything that's needed to produce the crops American science has developed.

To feed the starving, many small social actions are needed, such as better education, professional training, crop diversity using native plants which have evolved to be resistant to local pests, etc. This is an effort that does not compete and can perfectly well coexist with and profit from space science.

I agree. My wife and I have been very active for over ten years in efforts to bring this training and technology to third-world countries. I travel outside the US to teach certain aspects at least twice a year. More help is needed, especially from the type of technologically savvy people you find on /. Feel free to join us if you haven't already.

Re:Priorities

[posterlogo]

Sigh. We always get these posts anytime a 3rd world country tries to expand its horizons. Posts like the parent, or posts referring to charities and such contributing to a country's technological development rather than helping alleviate poverty. I think its incredibly arrogant to dictate to the world's largest democracy what its priorities should be. Show me the country that has *completely* conquered poverty and malnutrition and I'll take your argument to be valid, instead of flamebait. Health care in the US is ranked 15th in the world while we spend enough in Iraq daily to easily alleviate most health care issues and poverty in this country. I don't think you can direct a country of over a billion people to one issue at a time. The nation will follow its course at its pace and we would hope it would do so in a peaceful manner. Space technology is a matter of national security. Much good it would do to be a well fed peaceful country that is constantly being attacked by Pakistani terrorists or under threat of Chinese expansionists tendencies (it's happened before). You act as though Indians are "OK" with the level of poverty and thus feel they can concern themselves with other things. The reality is more that there are many issues facing Indians, and poverty is just one of them. Having a space program is the sign of a decent education system -- though it may not cover everyone yet. Imagine if the Indians hadn't bother to upgrade their telecommunications and computer science experience (instead dumping cash into food every day? Where would the economy be now? I'm encouraged by your sentiment that the situation is heart-breaking, but frankly, your attitude is one of "they're such a primitive people, they should just concentrate on food and shelter." It's one I've seen way to many times here.