Indian Moon Mission Launched 305
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
My parents spent a month there visiting friends and despite how quickly they're building up there are still many problems that need resolving. Maybe the moon mission is a good idea in some eyes, just as we are spending money on building weapons both of us should be putting it towards building schools, hospitals, and getting average Joe six pack health insurance so he can take care of that knee that has been bothering him.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Informative)
BJP govt instilled the country with some pride.
BJP is a fascist party with deep seated animosity towards anyone who is not an hindu. During the BJP regime, they and their supporting parties unleashed some of the worst atrocities against minorities in India.
To state that they have somehow instilled pride in the Indians is like saying that the Nazi party instilled pride in the Germans. That is to say that we (Indians) don't need that kind of pride. Thank you very much.
Also your claim that the moon shot will address poverty comes from the same school of thought that believes in the discredited "trickle down" theory of development which essentially says that if you continue to pamper the rich that the money will somehow magically reach the poor.
We know how well that has turned out. The wage disparity between the rich and the poor has never been more stark. The poor are poorer (google farmer suicides in India) and the rich are richer (google new Indian billionaires).
I am fully in support of the Indian space programme and the wonderful work that ISRO is doing, but let us not kid ourselves - the moon mission has nothing whatsoever to do with mitigating poverty.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
The space program in the U.S. went hand in glove with a whole host of other governmental programs - including a lot of work in education and other infrustructure.
It's not a surprise that these programs had benefits. When you spend money on enriching the population of a country (as the U.S. did before the 1980s) the population enriches the country.
Enriching the rich is fruitless, since there is only so much a few people can do with increasing wealth. the 400 or so families that control 90% of the wealth in the U.S. simply can't spend their money that fast, and now are now spending even less of it.
That said, the space program was never about enriching the population, though that was a clear benefit. I believe that these kinds of projects will always be beneficial to any society that implements them - that includes India - even if they don't immediately address more pressing concerns.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Depends how you do it, if your goal is to encourage people to set up companies and generate wealth/jobs then it's great, if your goal is to let your friends make a killing exploiting the poor then it's much much worse.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
...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. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
You are not proposing free education, the third tenant of the welfare state, are you?
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
I spoke with a guy last night who said he's been homeless for 15 years. He said his wife and kid were killed by a drunk driver. Now he drinks and lives on the street and basically just lives to forget. He seemed very smart, coherent, and personable. He was no unkempt. I have no doubt that he could do many types of interesting and decent-paying jobs but for some reason he doesn't.
I'd like to understand this better, but it seems that until you "fix" human nature you won't "fix" poverty.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:3, Insightful)
India needs to be poor (Score:2)
If people in India become rich how will all the NGOs and Church groups who raise money based on sad looking photographs survive? The typical business model is for every 10 dollars raised spend a dollar on some unproductive charity in India and pocket the other 9 dollars and lead a lifestyle even most Americans cant dream of. The whole third world charity industry probably employs more people in the US than heavy manufacturing. If India becomes non-poor all these average Joe Six packs would be worrying about their next meal and not their health insurance.
mark parent "shortsighted" (Score:2, Informative)
India's space program is different from those in US and other "developed" countries. India has always focused on the practical uses of space science. Communication, weather forecasts, delivering payloads etc. (instead of sending probes to pluto)
Elsewhere "space programs came as spinoffs of military programs, so the things the space program was expected to deliver were things that could be used in defense," says S.K. Das, a former ISRO official.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2, Informative)
ISRO generates Rs.1.5 to the economy for every Rs.1 that it uses in funding. This is the immediate return alone. The sustained returns (improvement in education and agriculture through remote sensing), and commercial application of its inventions are not included in this figure. The goal of ISRO is to promote space research to benefit as much of the population as possible.
ISRO is also selling commercial launch and remote sensing and imagery services through it's commercial division - Antirix corp which is making a profit.
More references:
http://www.isro.org/citizencharter.htm [isro.org]
http://www.isro.org/international.htm [isro.org]
http://www.isro.org/commercial.htm [isro.org]
http://www.isro.org/rrssc/img_ser.htm [isro.org]
http://www.isro.org/training_facilities.htm [isro.org]
Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:2, Insightful)
"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."
Nope. We began outsourcing to India because labor rates there are so much lower than in the U.S., not because of some perceived technological advantage. Pure economics. Very shorted sighted--a practice that will come back to bite the U.S. in the ass big time in the future.
As the Indian standard of living increases and salaries go up, then we'll just find another country with cheaper labor and move our outsourcing there instead.
As for the Indian moon mission: yawn... Ho hum... Been there, done that. Forty years ago.
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:2)
As for the Indian moon mission: yawn... Ho hum... Been there, done that. Forty years ago.
And we haven't been back in a while. If India is smart they will figure out how to colonize the large rock. I here there's crude oil under the surface. At the very least you have a giant rock you can do whatever you want with as long as it stays mostly in tact and in the same orbit without affecting the hunk of rock we live on.
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:2, Insightful)
Crude oil? From which fossils?
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:2)
What do you expect? Have you read his sig?
Justin Dearing http://plane-disaster.sf.net/ [sf.net] MS Access and SQLite database editor.
;)
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:3, Informative)
I guess you didn't get the clue the first time round and/or are too lazy to do research.
Crude oil (theories otherwise and evidence for non-organic alternatives notwithstanding) comes from organic materials, i.e. fossil fuels. And whist it's possibly that one of Saturn's moons does have life and might supposedly have reserves of fossil fuels, there's zero evidence for that. What you're thinking of is Titan and its methane seas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_geological_features_on_Titan [wikipedia.org]
Yes, methane on Earth generally comes from organic sources (e.g. cows), but it occurs otherwise.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on fuels by any means; by all means correct me where appropriate.
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:3, Funny)
wrong (Score:5, Informative)
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:wrong (Score:2)
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.
It might take a hundred years but it will happen again. The root of the problem is some small groups got too powerful. The same can happen to governments, corporations, NGOs, religions, or even a national association of knitting circles.
Re:wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
The collapse was caused by the creation of GSEs, and the subsequent congressional pressure on those GSEs to ensure loans could be make to poor people that couldn't afford to pay them back. Essentially Fannie and Freddy said, make a bad loan, and we'll buy it from you, because we think those people deserve loans. Without government regulation, the loans would have never been issued in the first place. Your pontificating about socialist wet dreams and rogue megacorporations is unwarranted.
Only an idiot incapable of taking care of themselves would want to live in a social welfare state.
Re:wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Only an idiot incapable of taking care of themselves would want to live in a social welfare state.
really? how's that murder rate working out for you?
Re:wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
The murder rate doesn't bother me, even a little. It's confined to the areas occupied by the dregs of society, if they kill each other off, it's one less thing I'll be asked to pay for.
NO. and please dont comment without researching (Score:5, Insightful)
1.000.000 people unable to pay for their mortgages nets to a loss around $300 bn, if the houses were bought from $600 k by the bank and their values now $300 k.
thats only 1/3 of the cash us had prepared for its banks, its also around 1/10 of the cash that europe has provided.
you see, the funds provided had already covered approx 20 times that loss, if you count in what japan, korea and other nations have readied.
you should have understood by now that this is nothing related to unpaid mortgages or poor people, or fannie mae freddie mac. this is the bullshit that republican bastards are feeding you to get off the hook.
the real problem is this :
banks are allowed to lend approx 10 times the total assets they have. because its logical - money turns slow, so it doesnt create a problem. its all valid liquidity wise. this ratio is a healthy ratio and its checked by government regulation.
but, due to the lawless environment republicans and holistic economists have created by yelping 'hands off business' 'government out' 'government bad for economy, youll cost jobs to people', government regulation was totally hampered in that sector since reagan era.
then what happened ? in this unregulated environment, some bastards realized this ; if they show those mortgages as assets, and then create DERIVATIVE assets over them (called hedge funds in general because they accept all kinds of 'assets'), they can sell/trade those assets !!!
and they proceeded to do that. they created assets linked to those mortgage assets, then started trading them. attracted investors. those funds have inflated in value, disproportionately. imagine the funds value becoming $ 20 trillion instead of the mortgage value of $ 200 bn. this is round one.
in round two, they went further. they showed those DERIVATIVES as assets. meaning, despite they had $200 bn worth of mortgage assets, they now had $20 trillion worth of hedge funds/investments tied to those mortgages !! and they started lending by showing their total assets as $20 trillion plus $200 bn !!! see the point ? they started lending money THEY DONT HAVE !
see the issue now ?!
someone should have stepped in, checked their books and said 'hey, you dont have that much assets. what you are showing me as assets are actually derivative papers tied to OTHER assets. these are NOT real, and they are OVERvalued !!' and stopped them in their tracks.
but noone did. because a lot of poodles were yelping 'hands off economy !!'. so it went like this, those banks lent to countries, governments, megacorporations, traded those investment funds SO widely around the world that every bank in the world got infested by those funds.
then it was discovered. and today we are here.
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Old-Fashioned Navel-Gazing (Score:3, Funny)
You have all of the answers. Great philosophers have been seeking them since ancient times.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:2)
Wow, I had no idea that was part of the definition [wikipedia.org] of third world.
I guess I've never really thought about the specifics of the origin of the term.
Cheers
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
The first paragraph there references the term's origins in the cold war.
I was under the impression it started off as that and was now that "3rd world" meant underdeveloped, like wiki says, but that was an adaptation. Initially it seems to be like the "First person, third person" perspective, with the US and nato allies being first person, because when we talked, the first person "we" meant first world countries. I guess 2nd world countries would be the communist bloc, although I've never heard that term actually used. And then 3rd world would be everyone not involved, directly anyway, many of which happened to be poor countries.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Yes, there is one definition more: The Old World (Europa) and the New World (Americas), with the third world being the rest. Still India fits though.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder which society has better long term prospects for its people, economy, and Government?
So are you saying rather than complaining about the US and stating we're moving to Canada we should say "That's it! I'm moving to India!"?
Doesn't have the same ring to it
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2, Interesting)
So you're essentially saying:
"We can pay them to come and be smart on our behalf because we have lots of money."
I could use economic phrases like "unsustainable trade deficit" or anthropological terms like "secondary loyalty", but something tells me that you'd need to hire someone to say something smart back.
If you want to know how well America's long term policy is serving it, look at the historical trend in US national (public and private) debt vis a vis its trading partners. Those figures will say far more about the first world's long term sustainability than I could hope to here.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Uh, maybe the reality is that the more people accept science, the less they are theists. I think theists tend to not understand that concept.
Science and god are opposites. The whole god concept has only been around a few thousand years, and yet the planet has existed for millions (and we are certainly not the oldest planet in the galaxy, as there is empirical evidence to back that up). If you believe some "being" in some form or another that cannot be scientifically explained at all is a reason for our planet's existence, then I have a bridge I would like to sell to you.
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.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
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.
That depends on the religion in question. Many religions are founded on the attribution of unexplained physical phenomenons to a supreme being, e.g. God. It is how they derive their authority and succumb people into belief. The way you view religion is too smart and sophisticated (no pun intended).
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Let me give you one line that sums up why you are incorrect:
Of course that there is no evidence for God's existence is not necessarily evidence for God's nonexistence, though it might be if we had reason for thinking that if God existed there would be evidence for this.
This all boils back to the same basic philosophy, empiricism vs rationalism [stanford.edu] or just straight agnosticism vs atheism [stanford.edu].
The big issue here, is how plausible you, yes you personally, find the idea that "god" or whatever you define as "god" to have been able to create our planet, all other concepts and things being equal. To me, I find it implausible. This is the real grey area. The grey area is not science or god, the real grey area is implausible or not.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:3, Informative)
You are applying a very, very limited definition of religion, almost to the point of being a straw man attack. Personally, I don't believe that God created man in his image, or built the planet Earth, or even caused the big bang. I don't believe that God reaches down and cures people's cancer overnight, or that he causes hurricanes and earthquakes to punish those who anger him. I'm not at all convinced that he does or ever has put holy words into the minds of prophets, or inspired any book that holds the answers to life's mysteries.
But I do believe in a higher power. It's not a logical belief, I have no proof or even anecdotal evidence. For all I know it is a curious perversion of brain chemistry or just something that has been engrained into me from my youth. I don't let it rule my morality, my morality is defined very simply as 'do unto others...'. It certainly doesn't change the way I see and understand science. It doesn't affect my life, or anyone elses, in any negative way.
I often go to read creationist websites, simply to be prepaired with counter-arguments if someone tries to defend creationism as science. One of the most common themes is that science is attacking religion just as much as religion is attacking science. Now, when religion is encroaching on science, science has every right to fight back using evidence, fact, and logic. But when those who would defend science continue attacking religion beyond the area that science speaks, how is that any different?
The point is, religious views don't have to constrain science. Gregor Mendel was a monk when he discovered the laws of genetic inheritence. Charles Darwin saw no conflict between the 'Origin of the Species' and the christian religion. Copernicus was a Catholic Cleric for most of his life, including when he published 'On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres'.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
No evidence for existence doesn't imply non-existence. That is true.
Then you say (I think) ... that if god existed, and if we expected there to be evidence that he existed, our expectation of evidence being unfulfilled, we can then turn that into evidence of non existence of god. I think that's what you say, but I'm not sure.
I certainly don't accept that your one line statement has coherently summed up why I'm wrong. It sums up why you think I'm wrong, but I wouldn't call it a compelling argument.
See, from a scientific and logical point of view, you can't really say anything about the existence or non-existence of god. There is simply no measure of evidence which would conclusively establish either proposition as true. Science basically says that once you're outside of a reality you can play what if with, you're no longer playing with science.
By its very nature, any entity which would be capable of creating the universe as we know it would be outside of the realm of what we'd be able to know. So, speculating on what happens outside of the reality that we can understand and know is ... well, speculating. At that point, pretty much any form of speculation is essentially equally valid -- flying spaghetti monster? Sure, why not??
Dude, I find reality implausible. That doesn't mean I find it impossible to believe in or reject that it exists, however odd or unlikely it may seem.
Here is what I personally believe ...
I believe that if such a being as god existed who could create the entire universe, that being would be so vast and profound that we could never really have a hope of forming a concept which would encompass that entity. I believe at that point that it's likely the universe would continue working within the physical rules which dictated its behavior, and planets and life would be a side effect that that universe. I don't think I can form an intelligent position on what god would be doing in the meantime, or what his opinions would be on the matter. :-P
I believe that there is absolutely zero objective evidence which could definitely establish the existence or non existence of such a being. I don't think we'd be capable of seriously evaluating this evidence anyway as it would be way more than our wee brains can possibly grasp.
I'm not advocating for the belief in a god, since I don't believe in god. I'm advocating for the belief in the belief in god.
Personally, I view it as a modified version of Pascal's Wager [stanford.edu]. I found that atheism lead to dark places without answers, and theism ignores the answers we have because those don't match what they believe. Personally, if your world view includes what we know to be scientifically true, and if you choose to believe in god, there is essentially no net harm to anyone else. The intangible personal benefits you may or may not receive are entirely your own business.
I choose to try to live my life as if there were greater consequences than a life which is merely ugly, brutish, and short. I can't accept the rigid morality of a church and an enduring "soul", and I can't accept the consequences of a system where what we do has no "big picture" implications and therefore morality is optional and a sign of weakness.
I fall into the camp of "neither this nor that". The Buddhist
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
I'm sorry. I talked like an ass today, and have only noticed in retrospect. I will try to answer another day when my head is not in my ass. My apologies to you, and the other poster.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
*laugh* It's a topic which often inspires such a response. Don't let it get you down. :-P
No harm no foul.
Cheers
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Only science as religion has any interest in competing with other religions. Science properly understood has absolutely nothing to do with religion, no relationship, not opposed, not in harmony, not interested since its realm is the demonstrable. Science is an incredible tool whose power is derived precisely from the constraints which keep it from ever being a religion, except when misconstrued by fools.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Science and god are opposites. The whole god concept has only been around a few thousand years
Not really; Science is the "How", and god is the "Why".
Also, although the oldest living religion (Hinduism) is estimated to have only been around 5000 years, I'm quite sure that religion as a concept has been longer, indeed Hinduism is believed to have evolved by absorbing pre-existing tribal religions. I'd bet my bottom dollar that religion and certainly spiritualism has been around since close to the dawn of Human civilization (admittedly still only a short period on geological timescales).
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
Well, it cuts both ways. The theists sometimes dismiss scientific evidence on the basis that it is incompatible with their beliefs in what god did, and what we're supposed to be able to do with it.
Some people coming from the theist point of view treat science as evil or irrelevant because it can come up with some items which might contradict a rigid, theism based world view -- take, evolution for instance. Among people who need to believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, the idea of evolution and fossils runs contrary to that. The notion that life could have occurred on another planet in a vast universe seems to cause some people some consternation as they want to believe that we are singularly unique and special.
Generally, I agree with you. It is entirely possible to maintain religious beliefs in the face of science (even in tandem with science) as long as you don't allow your beliefs to override the science. You just need to keep perspective on what issues are best answered by science, and which are best answered by religion.
Me, I think the questions best addressed by theism are largely in a different domain than the ones defined by science. As long as you don't try to pretend the science is irrelevant or untrue, religion is completely compatible with science. Religion speaks to things that are basically beyond what science can intelligently speak to.
Sometimes, however, religion is incompatible with science. And, when that happens, you get people defending positions which aren't in line with objective, rational thought. Physical events are not really in the scope of theism, rejecting the reality of physical events because it doesn't match your theism is where the problems arise.
Cheers
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is possible to apply the scientific method selectively, as most religious folk do, generally within their own fields of expertise, while denying the truth exposed through the scientific method. This is a clear example of cognitive dissonance.
For instance most Abrahamic religions have within their core doctrine that the earth was created 6000 years ago, which may have sounded believable 2000 years ago, but which by today's standards is truly arcane. The concept of Gods word blindly forces this reality upon billions of people.
In short, there are probably not that many religious anthropologists, geneticists, and astrophysicists, while the sciences that do not investigate the evidence, like computer science, or medicine for instance are more likely to have proportionately more religious practitioners in their ranks.
Re:How things are turning out. (Score:2)
For instance most Abrahamic religions have within their core doctrine that the earth was created 6000 years ago, which may have sounded believable 2000 years ago, but which by today's standards is truly arcane.
I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that's thoroughly wrong. The 6000 year old earth, or young earth creationism more broadly, is a fringe belief within Christianity. Catholics, for instance, won't have anything to do with it. The 6000 years number came from a Christian theologian a couple of hundred years ago (too lazy to get a reference, even from google. It's been a long day) who added up the generations listed in the bible since Adam and Eve. It relies on the bible being literally true, which is itself a fringe belief most prominent in American evangelical Christians and it's a ripe target for anyone who wants to ridicule weirdo religious beliefs (which I'm not accusing you of btw) so it's a belief that gets a lot of press. I would be extremely surprised if there is anyone (trolls aside) reading slashdot who seriously believes that the Earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so.
I have no idea what Jews or Muslims think about it, probably not much since they have their own religious scholars and don't need to borrow from Christianity.
I don't mean to make any remark about the rest of your post, I just wanted to correct the point.
Only $ 80 Mn (Score:5, Insightful)
mission control transcript (Score:5, Funny)
"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!"
Re:mission control transcript (Score:2, Funny)
'Thees ess Bahb. I am bery glad to be helping you today. I understand that you are habbing a problem with your thrusters?'
-Yes. Thruster 2 failed and we are .9% off course, we anticipate impact with the moon surface in 13 hours. We have attempted a manual restart and noted the ignition coil of thruster 2 had failed.
'Mmmm. Have you attempted to restart the thrusters?'
-Yes, dammit. I attempted a manual restart and the ignition coil has failed.
'Hmmm. Uh-huh. Could we attempt a manual restart of the thruster now?'
-We could but the DAMN IGNITION COIL has failed!!!
'Yes. I understand. So go ahead and restart the thruster, using the manual restart. To initiate a manual restart, press the manual...'
-OK, OK, OK. I did it. It still failed.
'...restart button on the engine control panel. The manual restart will fire the ignition coil in approximately 30 seconds.'
-THE IGNITION COIL HAS FAILED!!!
'So how is the weather there?'
-WTF?!!?! I'M IN SPACE. It's cold, and black, and I am hurdling at a big rock.
'Yes, it does not get very cold here. I am in Bangalor, India.'
-Listen Bijay. This is Sandeep. We had lunch in the cafeteria together two days ago. Set down the script and help me restart this thrust.
'Mmmmm. Did the thruster restart?'
Great - More to know about moon but what about (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Great - More to know about moon but what about (Score:2)
Re:Great - More to know about moon but what about (Score:2)
Well, no. Evidence is that the rocket scientists in Russia and the USA built ICBM's because they could use them to launch things into space, and then spent a lot of time trying to convince their political masters that the OTHER side was about to start launching things into space, and so they should too.
In other words, it wasn't space shots -> icbms, it was the other way around.
Re:Great - More to know about moon but what about (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Outsourcing. (Score:2, Interesting)
I am extremely happy that space missions are gaining importance on the world stage, as I see living offworld as the key to human survival in the long run.
Part of me wonders if the trend in outsourcing provided the economic base and not too small a technological leg up that India needed to succeed. I realize they have an amazing (and selective) university system that makes many of ours silly by comparison, but I wonder if our "American Spirit" had no small part in enabling this. I wonder if what we have to offer the world has more to do with that spirit than any other tangible asset.
This then would give us some clues to our role in the world as our "empire" fades during this next century. We are to become the skunkworks for the world.
Re:Outsourcing. (Score:2, Insightful)
NASA Projects conspiracy...er, links... (Score:2)
The two NASA instruments are designed to layover images and data readings where the landers and equipment are or are thought to be. Whether through some fancy electronic trickery/photoshop, or they built a scale model that hangs in front of the lenses at adjustable distances, or some other kooky theory. [sidebar] Perhaps the ISRO could snap a few photos of the sites in question to prove, yes or no, that we've been there and end this conspiracy.[/sidebar]
The actual projects by NASA are the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M^3), here [nasa.gov], and the Mini Synthetic Aperture Radar (Mini-SAR), here [nasa.gov].
Congratulations to the ISRO! This really is a great achievement. Plus, my ulterior motive being that I hope to see a Space Race reignited.
awesome (Score:2, Insightful)
Anonymous Coward (Score:2, Informative)
The PSLV-XL itself costs only 80 crore rupee (800 million rupees) or less than 20 million USD
14 days is kind of slow (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Watch the Launch Video (Score:3, Informative)
Another outsourcing industry started (Score:2, Insightful)
India showcased its low-cost space technology. Project cost only $79 million, considerably less than the Chinese and Japanese probes. Now world can outsource space projects to India. Another outsourcing industry started :)
This project also shows India's partnership with 14 other countries and sharing data and technology together.
Re:f1r5t m00nlanding (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry (Score:2)
A sad truth but India is now reaching for the moon while millions in the nation (just recently been there) are still dying from hunger and live in seriously abject poverty. And I mean real poverty.
Long term this is a money maker for India; there's a huge market for commercial satellite launches and other payloads; by going to the Moon India is showing that they're serious contenders in that market "We've been to the Moon, getting your satellite into orbit is easy compared to that. It'll cost you $xx million that's $x million cheaper than NASA or ESA".
Re:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry (Score:3, Interesting)
So? What are you trying to say? That India should wait until their problems are all solved? And for the rest of the world to move on?
And did you know that India is now a serious emerging player in the satellite launch market? If money is all you understand, please be informed that they will MAKE more money than they have spent on this mission. The reputation that the Indian Space Research Organization will gain from this will get them more launch orders. And that means more money.
And don't forget the technological spinoffs that will help make them better. And they have said they will share this knowledge with other industries.
I was watching the launch today, and they interviewed school kids about what they thought, and you know what? There's a whole horde of young people that have been inspired to pursue careers in space science, just because of this. The intangible benefits are far too many to enumerate here.
Grow up, man.
Re:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry (Score:2)
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?
Please make sure you feed them while teaching them to feed themselves.
It's economics 101 (Score:2)
A country like Australia works because the population is tiny and the extraction of resources is large, but even so they have developed a high tech industry. Germany has most of its industrial base far up the food chain, Switzerland even more so. Mexico makes cars, cars are made in the UK regions, but the UK industrial heartland is more interested in the R&D around Formula 1 racing because the value added is better. The US has tried to take the process a stage further with banking and intellectual property, which requires few reources but has a high value added; unfortunately as we are seeing this value added, because it has so little real asset behind it, is extremely vulnerable to fashion and obsolescence.
The Indians know all of this. The faster they can move their industry up the chain, the more they can spend on getting the peasants past a 500BCE living standard.
Re:It's economics 101 (Score:2)
and intellectual property, which requires few reources but has a high value added;
No no no! That would be high LAWYER added. But who said lawyers add value to anything except themselves?
Re:It's economics 101 (Score:2)
Re:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry (Score:2)
Re:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry (Score:2)
Re:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reaching the Moon while milllions go Hungry (Score:2)
Millions? Really? Show us one article or citation on this. Just one.
Re:PROGRESS!!!.... maybe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why moon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why moon? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is much more sensible to go in small steps first, so that any problems will be solved before the big project.
Re:Indian Moon Mission (Score:2)
Yeah, Sri Lanka.