Planning Phase Complete For Indian Moon Mission 391
alphakappa writes "According to news reports, India's low-cost moon mission -- Chandrayan -- has completed its planning phase and will be deployed in 2007-2008 as planned. The interesting aspect is that the entire mission is expected to cost only around USD 88 million. How do you think space technology will change as a result of these low cost missions, satellites and space vehicles?"
Low cost (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Low cost (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Low cost (Score:5, Informative)
Unmanned mission (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unmanned mission (Score:2)
Re:Unmanned mission (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it was a very expensive show, fueled by the cold war competition with the soviets.
It was necesary, tho. They proved it was possible to take a human being into another celestial body and return him safely, and that's no mean feat.
Re:Unmanned mission (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unmanned mission (Score:2)
Re:Unmanned mission (Score:2, Funny)
Here's to India!
May your best initial efforts be equally as successful as the first Apollo mission!
Re:$88 million is not low cost -- for India. (Score:3)
Then factor in costs associated with regulation (or non-regulation) of manufacturing processes. For example, it probably costs less to deal with hazardous waste p
Space travel in the hands of the masses (Score:5, Interesting)
ISRO... (Score:5, Informative)
ISRO has established space systems like the:
ISRO has also developed the satellite launch vehicles PSLV and GSLV to place these satellites in the required orbits.
Here's [isro.org] the complete list of ISRO's geostationary satellite system
I'd take this annoucement with a grain of salt (Score:4, Insightful)
India was denied cryogenic engine technology(for the heavy satellites it launches(which is currently done by Ariane x) in 1992/3 by Russia because of the dual use potential.
So India started developing its own cryogenic technology. It was supposed to be ready by 1999. Now, 12 years later, it is still not completely ready. Its gotten there 60-70 % but there is still a ways to go.
Unless you see an actual launch in 2007 of this moon mission I would be skeptical.(Forget moon mission, sending a man into orbit itself will be a big deal for India, moon mission is a far off dream(pun intended.))
China took a long while to send a man into orbit. India is going to take an even longer time to achieve that. 2007 isn't even that far away when talking about time frames for space programs.
And finally, when the heck were space programs within on close to their budget? 88 million? More like 500-900 million $.
Until then its speculation, speculation and more speculation. Geddit?
Re:I'd take this annoucement with a grain of salt (Score:3, Informative)
RTFA, this is an unmanned mission.
Re:I'd take this annoucement with a grain of salt (Score:2)
Its an UNmanned mission.
Re:I'd take this annoucement with a grain of salt (Score:3, Funny)
You mean, they'll send UN officials to the moon?
Re:I'd take this annoucement with a grain of salt (Score:2)
Re:I'd take this annoucement with a grain of salt (Score:2)
So India started developing its own cryogenic technology. It was supposed to be ready by 1999. Now, 12 years later, it is still not completely ready...
So that would make this 2011 then? It's only been five years, which for kick starting an entire field of research isn't that long.
Al.Cryogenic technology not ready, huh? (Score:2)
Re:I'd take this annoucement with a grain of salt (Score:2)
You are confusing american programs with indian programs. Just because an american program has to run over budget by an order of magnitude, doesn't mean everybody does it that way. And, since this is an unmanned mission, it's quite possible they have actually got a good handle on the issues. Heck, the rovers went to mars on budget, and that was Nasa, the king of 'lets see how much m
Re:I'd take this annoucement with a grain of salt (Score:2)
I don't believe such a mission can be completed in $88M either.
Let's forget about the more expensive US or EU rockets in the mean time....
The cost of a Russian Proton [space.com] Rocket is about $100M. The cost of the Soyuz-Fregat is about $50M... But, the thrust is probably too low to push a meaningful size payload to the moon orbit. The Chinese Long March is on par of that... Indian's IT infras
change as a result of these low cost.... (Score:5, Funny)
Some Indian engineer will confuse grams for Tola's and the thing will auger into the moon at 68.0e4 kph.
Re:change as a result of these low cost.... (Score:2)
Was waiting for this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Was waiting for this... (Score:2)
Maybe were just "who're"s anyways.
Re:Was waiting for this... (Score:2)
(Wasting karma here)
Eisenhower once said:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that everything we spend money on is a waste to those who have none.
Re: Was waiting for this... (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed the main thrust of my comment. I said that because India's infrastructure was struggling to handle the country's growth and that growth was accentuating social problems (rural/urban, rich/poor), the money would be better spent rectifying these so India's economic progress had some stability behind it. Your
Re:Was waiting for this... (Score:2, Insightful)
after all. this is
Re:Was waiting for this... (Score:2)
Ooh, ooh, I know! I know! (Score:4, Funny)
I think it'll get cheaper.
Re:Ooh, ooh, I know! I know! (Score:2)
Standardised components, hopefully (Score:4, Insightful)
I have always believed that the way to reign in costs of space missions is to use standardised components - you use the same delivery/landing system until you have something thta's proven to be better.
That means that companies can make thousands of the same components cheaper because they don't have to spend money redesigning them or resetting their production machines. The problems with each component are also well understood and can be planned for because of the extra experience with them, meaning a higher chance of success with each mission.
Click here for a little more (Score:5, Informative)
NASA Outsourcing (Score:3, Funny)
I mean, they've outsourced all sorts of IT and Tech-related jobs to India, why not also the various NASA Space Programs, at least the small but expensive components.
Planning-phase: Completed! (Score:5, Funny)
2) Land on the Moon
3) Go back to Earth
There, I finished planning-phase of my personal lunar-mission. Really, it's not that hard.
I wonder that is the fourth step "Profit!"?
Re:Planning-phase: Completed! (Score:2)
No, that's the fifth step. The fourth step is "???".
Re:Planning-phase: Completed! (Score:2)
1. Go to Space
2. Land on the Moon
3. ???
4. Profit!
Hooray for planning
Its great! (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the responses here are "why? what's the need? first take care of poverty.... blah blah" But many people just see india as place to outsource projects. Well, this is mission is just to prove India's ability to the world what it can do even if other nations don't give some technolgy to India. It is m
Conspiracy Theory (Score:4, Funny)
- cnb
Funny.. (Score:5, Informative)
How many of you know about India's space programmes though?
Did you know that India has been working on space programmes since the 60's [nti.org]?
Or that it had a comprehensive [isro.org] space progamme, that included a satellite system, a remote sensing satellite system, polar satellite launch vehicle and Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle ?
Or that when United States arm-twisted [flonnet.com]Russia in April 1992 and July 1993 not to sell the cryogenic technology know-how to India.
Or that India's cryogenic engine came of age [goodnewsindia.com] on April 18, 2001 when India bustled into the exclusive GSL club?
Re:Funny.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure some poeple on /. are racist, but get a reality check. Most people are just ignorant. If the article was about Canada trying to send a probe to the moon, do you think that most people would have the first clue about the Canadian space program [space.gc.ca] and its accomplishments [space.gc.ca]? I'm sure we'd be getting lots of uninformed comments and jokes (the usual regarding beer, hockey, high taxes or how we pronounce something), but no accusations of racisim.
Just beacuse people don't know anything about the Indian space program or conditions in India in general doesn't make them a racist.
Not exactly correct either... (Score:3, Informative)
It is still an impressive development. However, the cryogenic engine that they are using is a Russian import [space.com]. The Indians build their own fuel tank and pumping system... Quote from the article "India is using the (Russian) engine as a component in the GSLV, but without a technology transfer." "It is a technology which has never been used by India before," Narasimha (Director of Indian National
search for US Flag (Score:2, Funny)
$88 million NOTcheap (Score:2)
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/msur98.htm
"The Mars Surveyor '98 program spacecraft development cost 193.1 million dollars. Launch costs are estimated at 91.7 million dollars and mission operations at 42.8 million dollars. "
So an $88 million estimate sounds about right.
and another link... (Score:2)
"Combined, the 1998-99 crop of Mars missions -- Climate Orbiter, Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 -- cost about $320 million. That's about a 10th the cost of the Viking mission that successfully landed two spacecraft on the red planet in 1976."
So $83 million should be plenty to do this mission.
Well done! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen a lot of the other comments, which are all along the lines of general - and stupid - derision, asking 'why, oh why'. Yes, India has many problems with poverty etc, but so has USA, Russia and China; in fact Europe are the ones that have the best record on those issues, so perhaps only Europe should ever send things into space, don't you agree?
No I think all these objections are more to do with the fact that India is not America and most Americans hate the fact that others are able to do these things and rely on themselves rather than the scraps the US allow them. There was the same sort of sentiment when the European equivalent of GPS was launched: 'Why, oh why'.
Well I'll tell you why:
1. It's not American - people in the world often prefer to do things independently of America, often because they don't trust the benevolence of America.
2. In the case of India's space program - China and India are rivals in many areas, they are both on the verge to take the place at the top economically in the world. China has put a man in space and annouced plans to put one on the moon, and India feel they have to demonstrate that they can do it too.
Apocrypha : the answer to "why?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer : the following anecdote was not verified by me first hand, but given what I know, it sounds very reasonable.
Circa 1978, the Morvi dam in the state of Gujarat burst. The flooding and the resultant loss of life and property was huge. The event made front-page headlines in India. One of the more curious aspects of this incident was apparently that the Indian government was clueless about the occurrence of this disaster, but the US spy satellites in orbit detected the event. The Indian government was informed by the US about the disaster.
At that time, ISRO (the Indian space agency) had been in existence for many many years - but their funding was more of an afterthought. This incident opened the eyes of many to the strategic value of a space presence. As a result, circa 1982, India put its first satellite into space.
People in the US may not appreciate the usefulness of a space presence. The following information was gleaned from a documentary funded by the UN :
India went onto launch many more satellites - a lot of of them for weather forecasting. The neighbouring country of Bangladesh is located in the delta of two major rivers. Flooding is a perpetual annual problem. Subsequent to the Indian weather satellites being available, the UN sponsored the use of the weather forecasting data that was available to provide an early warning system for flooding due to cyclones (known as hurricanes in the US). The first year this was done, the loss of life was 150,000. The previous year it had been 300,000. And no, I am not making these numbers up.
The president of India (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The president of India (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, however, you are right
Gotta love a presidente that also has links to his books, poetry and songs. Specially when the books include Develompents in Fluid Mechanics and Space Technology [presidentofindia.nic.in]
How Did Yugo Change Cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see if it works, first.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it is amoral and shortsighted to invest in developing local technology so that local industry thrive [computerworld.com] and help catch a pie of the multi-billion dollar satellite launch market [space.com] by proving their capabilities, so they get foreign business [spacedaily.com], creating thousands of jobs in the process, and bringing in billions of foreign capital to grow their economy?
So it is amoral and shortsighted to invest in communications systems to help boost education levels in poor rural areas [designerz.com]?
A space program isn't a pissing contest - all countries depend on space technology in one way or another. For a country with more than a sixth of the worlds population it would be lunacy to depend on other countries for things like military surveillance, communications, weather monitoring, etc. It would also be lunacy to let other nations cement their technical superiority and hold onto their grip on a market that is growing extremely rapidly, and will be a vital revenue source in a few decades.
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how this is substantially different from the US, other than by scale. There are a lot of people living in appalling conditions in the US as well (not *quite* as many, of course). For example, the $350 billion a year of military spending might have bought the country quite a lot of educational institutions, hospitals or whatever. Instead, it's blown through the chimney in a massive dick-waving contest.
This is applicable to money spent on space, too. Or what about the military uses originally intended for the Shuttle project? Was any of the money ever put to use at all, let alone for a purpose?
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I can. Teflon was invented in 1938 by Roy Plunkett at DuPont, trademarked and first marketed in 1945 [teflon.com]. Google for "teflon invented" [google.com].
I don't know how often I've heard the urban legend that Teflon was somehow related to space research. Doesn't make it right, though.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
It is completely valid to question whether this concern over how India spend it's money is because the person in question is concerne
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Would one be a hypocrite if one tells a person who just got hit by a bus to go to the hospital but not one who just got a papercut?
no.
QED.
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that one country has more people suffering than another does not make the suffering of those affected any different.
If it
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Note that argument by moral equivalence is perfectly OK as long as moral equivalence is an adequate description category for the problem domain in question (i.e. the discussion is on a moral topic) and as long as participants share the same basic moral frame of reference on the subject, which is probably the case in this discussion (we both disapprove of countries wasting money needed for education of the poor etc.). For reference (note that the debate is about morality already when I make my point):
[Story] [slashdot.org] $COUNTRY is spending $MONEY on space research.
Also note that my main point is not even argument by moral equivalence, it's argument by equivalence in substance (the money is actually being spent). It certainly does have a moral implication at this point of the discussion, though.
Re:What is the point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, what was so crucial about the US's mission to the moon? Was it really crucial back then to know the composition of moon rock? Hardly. Your complaints are better aimed at the billions per month spent in Iraq rather than how a foreign nation decides to spend its money.
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Inspiring people in India to get an education isn't a problem,inspiring themto want to stay in/return to India once they have that education is another matter. Unless the spin-offs include a lot of well paid high prestige jobs in India, this isn't really a factor.
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
India already have a significant stream of Indians moving back to the country as the number of "high paid" (by local standards) technology jobs have been rapidly increasing.
And a project like this could easily include a lot of well paid high prestige jobs - if it boosts India's reputation as a reliable partner for satellite launches, and local firms are prioritized for purchases for the project wherever possible, the return could easily be many times the investment.
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, are you too blinded by your own prejudice to notice that development is development, no matter what? People need to be motivated, and this is just a means of doing it.
I guess you would rather spend it on conquering some poor nation for it's oil and natural resources, and brand it progress, rather than have a developing nation take steps to not merely enhance the quality of living of its people, but also it's science. FYI -- any progress is progress. NASA isn't going to give the blueprints of its flights to India tomorrow, and the only way that they are going to progress is to do it on their own.
Do you have any suggestions? Or would you rather suggest that until all of the billion people are given television sets and fat burgers so that they can sit on their couches, there should be no progress at all? They're trying to catch up with the rest of the world, give them a break and give credit where it's due.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
You guess wrong, actually, and you are trying to pin opinions on me which are not mine. Also, I disagree re: progress is progress. Things have been labelled "progress" wrongly before; hell, one could argue that the entire w
Re:What is the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
But what is the point?
Space technology is important to improve the veritable sea of people is living in
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any country that doesn't get a strong foot hold out there by themselves will have to rely heavily on those that did; and those that did, will eventually be able to tur na huge profit out of their advances.
At no point do I think the money spent now will help the current, or even the next few generations, but it will make a difference in the future.
If you believe that all the powers in space will be altruistic in the future, then maybe putting 88 million (or 500 if you look at their total space budget) into feeding everyone one will have more benifits. But then again, 500million dollers ends up being what, 50 cents per indian citizen, or maybe it could educate their citizens (though rough calculations put the percentage in the 0.00's)?
The knowledge gained from this should and will outstrip that 50c benifit in no time.
What is the point? ICBM? (Score:3, Insightful)
[[I could be wrong about my history here, but I believe the reason the US-Soviet space race was so important was to show the other side that they could send nukes across the globe without launching a manned bomber.]]
Think about it, NASA was largely developed by Wernher von Braun. The same man who brought us the V2 rocket. It is now said he built that rocket with the ideas of someday going to the moon. Either way, i
Re:What is the point? ICBM? (Score:5, Interesting)
GLSV wouldn't make a very good ICBM, but if they wanted to weaponize that capability, it wouldn't take much work. However, they already have missiles with enough range to deter the other regional powers (Pakistan, China) and have no real reason to worry about the US, EU or Russia.
Developing space technology, OTOH, gives them national prestige, technical advancement, and the chance to profit from selling space services.
Missile Shield perhaps then? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, we are going back to the cold war era, when everyone lived in perpertual fear of the commies nuking the heck out of us. Later we realized that Russians love their kids too, but now we just cant be sure about the terrorists (do they have kids too?).
Soon we will start looking in
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, maybe not. Consistent with the primary objective of using space technology for societal benefits, Department of Science (DOS) has implemented the satellite sytems systems that form important elements of the national infrastructure today for providing vital services in the areas of telecommunication, television broadcasting, meteorology, disaster warning and resources survey and management. The progress made in the application of space technology during the year is highlighted in the following sections. If you want to know what those application are, take a look here
Secondly, such space missions may not directly affect the country's economy or the well-being of the people directly, but the knowledge gained is then applied to other areas. Such low-cost missions also enable the country to be self reliant so that they dont have to be dependent upon fickle, external, happy-to-go-war-for-oil powers who refused India cryogenic technology for ill-founded fearsM [eisenhowerinstitute.org], which incidentally, had no long-term consequences excepting for some delays in India launching its indigenous rockets.
> Or is this solely a demonstration of power?
If that's what you think. We believe it is a step towards self-reliance.
> A sort of an international dick-waving contest?
That is the most pompous, ignorant, half-assed comment as any that I've heard. So developing countries should not try to break free from the shackles of poverty, by using technology? Or do you think such technology has just one direct application and no transferable by-products? Or that such technology is the domain of only the rich? What rubbish!
> You are not grown up until you send some expensive junk to the moon or something?
Just so you dont growel in your own ignorance that this is the only Indian space programme, here is the complete list to relieve you of your pain:
> Those eighty million might have bought the country one more university or one more hospital - which, I believe, have a better chance of saving / educating a person which makes an important scientific discovery than that pile of junk has of making a good return on its moon trip
Hospitals? You gotta be out of your mind. Just google about healthcare in India and the healthcare "tourists" that India attracts every year.
Sure, despite all this, I know it's a poor land. But to trample all over it, because you have a self-formed belief that it should focus only on hospitals, is being clueless
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
And I find it rather difficult to understand the generally held belief that a poor country should focus only on basic necessities, healthcare, et al.
I am not trying to convince you of the benefits of the programme, but I can certainly point out few things:
Space program has always been at the heart of India's belief of a progressive nation. My earliest memories of any
The point is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Kennedy 1962
His vision was not exclusive to the US. A national effort, borne of indigenous ability and resources, will do more for India and others like India then all the social programs and government bureaucracies you will ever imagine in your wildest nanny state dreams.
India, go forth. Take your $88 million and show us how it's done. Best wishes.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
Dick waving contests are important, primate. Whether or not nations are respected on the international stage has everything to do with technological prowess. India stands to gain a great deal of leverage when they prove they have the technical cahones to actually land something on the moon. From that moment forward, no one will be the slightest bit confused about whether or not India can put a warhead on Los Angeles or Paris; it will be perfectly crystal fucking c
Re:What is the point? (Score:2)
I often think exactly the same thing when it's time to get up in the morning. Usually, once the day is done, the point is obvious. Hindsight is good.
Re:What is the point? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What is the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
What they need to do is develop their economy, local expertise and provide jobs for all those graduates beyond call centres. A decent space programme is a good way to do that.
Re:What is the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not as if India is sending a piece of metal worth $80MM to the Moon. The actual cost of the hardware is a minute part of that. In the meantime, building that hardware is:
1. providing local employment that otherwise might not have been provided, thus reducing poverty.
2. providing demand for local business and engineering
3. gaining engineering skill and experience, something that will be very useful for gaining inward investment from other nations
There'
Re:What is the point? (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, everyone knows the moon is made of panir!
Re:What is the point? (Score:2, Informative)
paneer means.. [food-nepal.com]
Re:The point (Score:3, Funny)
I knew WW1 to be an evil imperialist plot created by Britain somehow, organised by the King contacting his cousins the Kaiser and the Tsar, no doubtl
Re:"only" USD 88 million? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"only" USD 88 million? (Score:2)
Ok, for the Inkas, it would have been better if that money hadn't been spent. But fortunately, the danger that we will kill another culture on the moon doesn't exist.
Re:"only" USD 88 million? (Score:4, Insightful)
(e.g. the edusat part of their space program)
Jeroen
Re:"only" USD 88 million? (Score:4, Funny)
2904 full size 4WD pickup trucks
8800-1760 houses (depending on where you live, of course)
176000 TV's
17600 snowmobiles
4400000 music CD's
3520 university educations (in the US. In some countries uni.educations is free, then the money would be used for beer.)
44 Lear Jet airplane
88088 Rubber ducks [pricehot.com] (Now on sale)
1 Bush-for-president campaign...
Nahhh...I think I still whould go for the Moon...
Re:"only" USD 88 million? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"only" USD 88 million? (Score:2)
Re:Obvious comment, but I can't help it (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not making excuses for the lack of govt focus on infrastructure, I'm just pointing out that every country has problems related to poverty, bad/old infrastructure and corruption.
Yeah, its the obvious reply, that I could not help but make.
Re:Obvious comment, but I can't help it (Score:2)
A space program may not have that many direct benefits
Re:wow, unmanned trip to the moon. (Score:2)
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited did that [fas.org] some time ago.
Re:wow, unmanned trip to the moon. (Score:2)
"I'm not sure I'll be impressed when some 3rd world country builds their first jet either."
But yeah, I'm not impressed still, unimpressiveness confirmed.
Re:wow, unmanned trip to the moon. (Score:2)
Re:wow, unmanned trip to the moon. (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you seriously sugesting they should refrain from advancing themselves because the US (which is well known for sharing wit the rest of the world) has done it before?
Jeroen
Re:only $88 mil? (Score:2)
1) They are not sending people to the moon, just a probe
2) The cost/shuttle mission is more like $500 million/mission
Re:only $88 mil? (Score:2)
Re:only $88 mil? (Score:2)
So, by your figures, even the $3.3 bn should buy 33-66 launches in a year. Clearly not the case.
In 2001 and 2002, there were 6 and 5 launches, respectively. Ergo, ~$500M / launch dividing the whole program by the number of launches.
BTW, in 1999 and 200, the launch numbers were 3 and 5. (http://www.seds.org
Re:only $88 mil? (Score:2)
When the shuttle was proposed, that was the big selling feature, a cost of $10 million per trip. In reality, the cost of a shuttle mission today is around 500 million, so in pro-rated dollars, about half the cost of an apollo moon shot. hmmm, I wonder what has more value, an apollo mission to the moon, or 2 s
Re:The human life factor (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that so shocking ?. That's just the point. In the Cold War, the US of A and USSR were in an even uglier deadlock - Mutually Assured Destruction [fact-index.com]. Here at least India has a No First Use agreement .
Also there's the relgion angle .. Ever heard about Moksha [wikipedia.org] ?. Think about a terrorist who believes in COMING BACK [wikipedia.org] after death.
Re:ALL YOUR BASE... (Score:2)