Indian Launch Vehicle Explodes After Lift-Off 227
Indian communications satellite GSAT-5P was destroyed by the explosion of its launch vehicle, the Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle. The GSLV malfunctioned while still in its first phase of its Christmas launch, after less than a minute of flight. YouTube has a video of the explosion, taken from TV9 Kannada.
Video in English (Score:5, Informative)
A much better video in English here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH-0OH0MI2Y [youtube.com]
Re:Video in English (Score:5, Informative)
The orange cloud at 0:45 should be the hypergolics in the strap-on boosters, I believe that's what caused the orange cloud in the Challenger disaster.
According to the wiki article on the GSLV's predecessor [wikipedia.org] the first stage injects chemicals (aqueous strontium perchlorate solution) into the nozzle to control yaw. I wonder if this has been problematic in the past?
Re: (Score:2)
So the injected chemical problem makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't read this before my original post, but the GSAT-5P wiki article [wikipedia.org] and linked reference [hindustantimes.com] say that the strap-ons stopped responding to commands, and the vehicle was d
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like a pretty ordinary hard-over failure of the control system, mitigated by what the other engines could to and aerodynamic stability. Then it broke up. Whatever happened after that is almost random.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't take much to shred a rocket really. You can even shred model rockets if you don't balance them correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Video in English (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks has the one where you can see aliens shoot down the rocket.
You sure that wasn't the CIA inside the ship that they scored in Roswell? The same one that will likely "abduct" Julian in a completely random and unrelated event?
Re:Video in English (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the unedited one shows the rocket continuing on into space properly. This video is just for the insurance company...
Fireworks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty!!! That's one expensive fireworks display that they put on for Christmas!
Seriously though, the GSLV seems to have a pretty poor success rate; this is the third of five operational launches to fail.
Re:Fireworks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously though, the GSLV seems to have a pretty poor success rate; this is the third of five operational launches to fail.
It is their most ambitious booster to date, and AFAIK, it has more 'indigenous' technology than previous systems. If the Indians are like everybody else, they're gonna go boom for a while.
It is Rocket Science.
While that's true (Score:2)
It looks like they need to do a serious evaluation on it. While it might just be implementation issues, the kind of thing you can work out as you get better, perhaps it is also just not a very good design. At this point I think it needs some serious evaluation.
Re:Fireworks! (Score:4, Interesting)
It is Rocket Science.
Not really. As companies like SpaceX have shown, these days it's more rocket engineering than science. The basic principles are well known, the biggest hurdle seems to be quality control on a huge number of parts.
Re:Fireworks! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm trying to be mildly amusing and you go and get all pedantic about it.
On Christmas, of all days.
I am so not inviting you to parties next year.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not exactly brain surgery, is it ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
That's not exactly brain surgery, is it ?
Yea, if you screw up, then you lose one to two orders of magnitude more money than you'd lose with brain surgery. And with brain surgery, you know in advance that anyone who dies wasn't healthy.
Re:Fireworks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
unless Elon Musk already has designs for a rocket capable of taking us beyond the moon
Ignoring for the moment that the Falcon 9 Heavy, or the ULA rockets are capable of taking us beyond the Moon (you need orbital assembly and orbital propellant handling and storage to seal the deal), it is worth noting that SpaceX does have plans for a heavy lift vehicle [wikipedia.org] with payloads in the 140 ton range. They claim it can be done for somewhere around $2 billion. That's probably almost two zeros smaller than what the Ares V would have cost, assuming that NASA and SpaceX could deliver respectively on their p
Re: (Score:2)
If SpaceX ever builds that "F1-class" engine (aka the "Merlin 2") and puts it into production, SpaceX is going to simply own the heavy lift market entirely. The initial target is to simply replace the cluster of 9 engines with the Falcon 9 and have simply a single engine on the first stage. I doubt that would be used for manned spaceflight (due to the safety features of an "engine out" capability being bragged about by SpaceX), but it does give an idea how powerful that engine would be.
I certainly don't s
Re:Fireworks! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, there have been dozens and dozens of successful Indian launches in the past, only this particular rocket series (GSLV) has a low success rate (2/5). The SLV, PSLV, and others have been remarkably successful.
And that aside, "learning from your mistakes" is only possible if you give them the tech and details of your launches, which is not happening at the moment.
Re:Fireworks! (Score:5, Insightful)
You nuts? You know where private corporations would manufacture those rockets? Think for a moment before you say something like that!
Besides, ponder for a moment what that would lead to. First, mothball every idea you had about space exploration. There is no profit in that. Second, drop any notion that information would be shared. Should they stumble upon a new propulsion system, rest assured that it will be patent-bound before the first prototype comes close to making its first cough. Third, unless it's regulated like crazy (and then rest assured it will be heavily lobbied against), pollution and space littering will skyrocket. Exhaust from rockets ain't really "green", even with NASA's efforts to make it "greener". Don't think that private enterprise would. And since it's up in the stratosphere or beyond, who cares about it? It will spread so thinly across the globe that, by the time we notice it, we can't do jack about it anymore anyway. And since there is zero profit in cleaning up the exhausted stages, they'll orbit for a while 'til they come down ... somewhere. Oh, sure, they have to be disposed orderly, but ... let's ponder for a moment... chance to hit something and kill a few people, price to pay when it hits a few people, price to pay to make it really reenter controlled ... let's see what's cheaper.
Oh, and finally, I would not really sell an astronaut a life insurance anymore. The same applies here: What's cheaper? Ensuring the one you have stays alive or hiring and training a new one? What's the price of an astronaut, does anyone know? He better pray that this training is expensive enough that the corporation has any interest that his reentry vehicle really works. Or, in other words, I wouldn't ask for too high a salary, it might be interesting if they didn't have to pay it...
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, ponder for a moment what that would lead to. First, mothball every idea you had about space exploration. There is no profit in that.
I'm sure that's what people said about sea travel.
Second, drop any notion that information would be shared.
It would be shared through mergers and acquisitions.
Third, unless it's regulated like crazy (and then rest assured it will be heavily lobbied against), pollution and space littering will skyrocket.
Yes, that's a serious problem. But it's already a serious problem. Who is regulating our space emissions? Who's regulating India?
Oh, and finally, I would not really sell an astronaut a life insurance anymore.
I hope this is the dumbest thing you say today.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed on your last comment. No matter how much America wants the world to become this utopia, it won't ever happen until this type of helpful information is shared. Too bad it all comes down to military technology and egos.
Privatize the space program already!! Whos in??
No, it comes down to military technology and egos that really really want to use it. We have a big military (although, to be fair, it's a hell of a lot smaller now that it once was, massive force reductions since the fall of the Soviet Empire) because certain of those big egos were pointing big explosive devices at us. They still are, but certain other big egos in Washington seem constitutionally unable to accept that, in the odd belief that the "world is now safe for Democracy", whatever the Hell that mean
Re: (Score:2)
It ain't been on Wikileaks yet and spies are so terribly expensive. Not to mention that it's cheaper to blow up a few rockets than to risk a spy being caught and to piss of the US that way. Their rockets work, ya know...
Re: (Score:2)
NASA lost the engineering specs for the Saturn V
No they didn't [space.com].
Citation from there: "The real problem is the hundreds of thousands of other
parts, some as apparently insignificant as a bolt or a washer, that are simply
not manufactured any more."
There also was lots of "hands on" know-how by the people doing the actual metal
bending that never was properly documented. That's why rebuilding a working
Saturn V is likely to cost about as much as a new development - and then you'd
have a rocket using state-of-the-art 1960s technology and materials.
Re:Monkeys -- I think not (Score:3)
You're a doubly-confirmed fucking moron.
Any attempts at explanations in the heat of the moment make no sense, because you'd be pretty much making shit up. No one explained anything right after Challenger's blow-up, and you'll hardly find anyone anywhere explaining anything before the formal investigation gets going and they have an inkling as to what happened. If you want to listen to some hilarity, find Challenger broadcasts on youtube, right after the explosion.
As for the "launch going South" and the "mon
Everyone focuses on the engine.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.
Someone forgot to apply the indian version of lok-tite to some mating ring bolts. :)
Re: (Score:3)
And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.
It fell off because the rocket started pitching over . . . likely due to the engine.
Re: (Score:2)
And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.
It fell off because the rocket started pitching over . . . likely due to the engine.
Maybe. It's hard to tell from the video. Another possibility is a structural or airframe failure near max-Q. The vehicle is noticeably bent. Whether it is bent because it is not heading into the relative airflow, or if the bend it what is causing it to pitch away from the direction of motion, it's hard to say.
Re:Everyone focuses on the engine.... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they did not realize the gravity of the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Most definitly! During the last year, it increased a lot.
At least my bathroom scales say so.
Re:Everyone focuses on the engine.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And completely misses the fact that several seconds before the first stage goes up in a fireball, the top of the rocket falls off and collides with the first stage.
Someone forgot to apply the indian version of lok-tite to some mating ring bolts. :)
More likely the explosive bolts exploded a wee bit early....
From what I've been able to gather from the commentary and looking at the clip a bunch of times, it looks like it lost attitudinal control first, then the upper stage failed. Can't be sure exactly when the RSO blew the rocket up, but I think it occurs much later in the sequence when it's clear that the booster failed. Typically an errant booster is given a bit of time to fall apart before it's blown up as the destruct sequence is manual and one would like to get some video of what failed before everything turns into a bunch of expensive fireworks.
Re: (Score:2)
it looks like it lost attitudinal control first
I often blow up too when I lose attitudinal control.
Re: (Score:3)
The ISRO mentions a "large altitude error"; I'm no rocket scientist, but if I had to guess I'd say that the first stage stopped thrusting evenly, causing the GSLV to veer off course and the errant rocket was destroyed for safety reasons. Or the resulting torque from the offset thrust vector tore the second stage off.
There are also reports of locals finding hunks of charred reindeer throughout the region, but I'd chalk that up to coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not designed to fly sideways. Can't say that American rockets fare any better in those circumstances.
Re: (Score:3)
Wile E Coyote begs to differ.
At least tech support is a local call (Score:4, Funny)
Just sayin'
Re: (Score:3)
Hello! Hmmm...you say it blew up. Here's what you could try:
1. Could you try rebooting? Oh, it's already blown up.
2. How about reinstalling your software? Ah, no machine left to reinstall into.
3. Please contact your manufacturer. You may have to mail in the remains.
Re: (Score:2)
And they might even understand what they're saying! Though, I doubt that will increase the quality a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it was still funny! OK - so yeah maybe its an unfair stereotype but it is so rare that any phone call I make to any kind of call center isn't met by someone who is obviously Indian - it is inevitable that the joke was coming.....
Re: (Score:3)
You gotta expect a bit of venom there. You call for tech support and the very first thing they do is lie to you. About their NAME or all things. How well can a call go when you can't even get past the hellos before the lies start? Just to top it off, it's an insultingly transparent lie.
Interpretation (Score:2)
Viewing the video, I had the impression that the first stage was unable to keep the rocket straight, which caused a high lateral pressure on the rocket, especially at the top. The top was then taken off by this lateral wind. For a long time the rocket kept the same inclination angle but was progressively destroyed.
So the destruction appears to have been caused by a power drop in the first stage, not by a direct explosion.
Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
My experience with teaching students from India is that they do great on the theory, but in the lab not watch out.
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
My experience with teaching students from India is that they do great on the theory, but in the lab not watch out.
And here we have a pompous ass who extrapolates his "teaching experience" to rocket launches. So, Mr. Pompous Ass, what about the dozens of past successful Indian launches? How does your "teaching theory" account for that, eh moron?
Re: (Score:2)
That even pompous asses are right once in a while?
Re:Not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
People like to sling around implications of racism, but the fact is it has everything to do with culture.
For example, consider the difference between students raised in Asia, and students of Asian decent raised in the west. The students raised in Asia (and not necessarily Asian themselves) cheat like hell because doing well in school is *extraordinary* important in Asia. Students who were raised in the west were not raised in this extreme pressure, and are on average more honest (or at least act more ashamed of their cheating).
This phenomenon is well documented. Posting as AC, because people will undoubtedly attempt to slander this as "racist" as well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also posting as AC, for obvious reasons.
Asians cheated like fucking crazy throughout grad school, and for the reasons described by parent. The thing is, in the west, there's a great deal of emphasis on honor, personal achievement, etc. In Asia, it's hugely about expectations, meeting them, and being successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd. I've known quite a number of them who could build some quite impressive experimental set ups.
Why's it so hard to get this thing in orbit? (Score:2)
Why's it so hard to get this thing in orbit? I mean, it's not rocket scie.....wait a minute...
Go home... (Score:2)
...they need you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I agree that the Apollo program might not have failed if only the 1965 Act had been a few decades sooner. But we got over that xenophobia and, with your help, overcame that failure born of inbreeding and went on to colonize the solar system with a booming economy!
But sacrifices must be made...
Wow: (Score:2)
An amazing amount of India bashing in this discussion.
Let's see what those evil Indians did to earn such wrath.
Uh... They got jobs.
Was it any of the reasonable criticisms of the Indian nation? (as all nations have things they can be criticised for)
No, not really. Some of them are trotted out as insults, but what's the real reason for them being so hated? They got jobs.
They had the unmitigated gall to go out and try to support themselves by manning call centers and doing IT work. Sometimes moving from where
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Your ignorance is astounding. (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that there's a pretty significant difference between the rockets used to put artificial satellites in orbit and the Space Shuttle, right?
We've been putting artificial satellites into orbit for over 50 years now. While it's complex, it isn't particularly difficult to do. There's a large base of accumulated knowledge on the subject, and these days it can generally be done flawlessly by many different nations and space programs.
The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, is so much more complex. America is the only nation that has been able to pull it off so far. Not only that, but it's not just sending some circuitry and solar panels into orbit. The Space Shuttle was dealing with real people who were to be returned safely. It's quite remarkable that in over 30 years and well over 100 launches there have only been two disasters.
To make a programming analogy that you can understand, this is basically the equivalent of India fucking up a simple "Hello World!" app. It's a fuck up that just shouldn't happen these days.
Re:Your ignorance is astounding. (Score:5, Informative)
The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, is so much more complex. America is the only nation that has been able to pull it off so far.
Actually, we're one of two. The Soviet Buran [wikipedia.org] did fly successfully, albeit unmanned. It probably would have worked at least as well as the shuttle -they avoided some of the mistakes on the shuttle, such as using solid rocket boosters and mounting the main engines on the shuttle itself, but the USSR ran out of cash in the late 80s.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say - unfortunately. The Buran project was pursued primarily because of some misplaced notion of "strategic parity" - mostly pushed by some ignorant Soviet generals paranoid about (nonexistent...) advantage given by the Space Transportation System. Even within the concept of reusable spaceplane (not necessarily a good idea in general), the Soviet engineers wanted to go elsewhere [wikipedia.org].
They did do it more sensibly - Energia-approach was basically an Ares V-like one, from the start. But it also meant cancellati
Re: (Score:2)
Buran flew once with two orbits, even if the American Shuttle program had only one launch, STS-1 it would be considered much more successful.
Buran 1.01 - 2 orbits, 3 hours and 26 minutes - no life support, no on board software
STS-1 - 37 orbits, 2 days, 6 hours and 21 minutes - 2 crew, full life support, full software, manual landing
Re: (Score:2)
"Few orbits flight" was EXACTLY the whole supposed point of Shuttle-like vehicle (as advertised and as far as its form & capabilities are concerned); to launch, quickly perform military mission and immediately deorbit while returning to the area of launch.
It's not too much of a stretch to ponder if Buran demonstrated this intended / defining capability of such space vehicle much more fully, and all it took was one flight vs. 100+... (also, only displays didn't have software / remember that during this t
Re: (Score:2)
The whole concept of such vehicle was intended for short hops, that's why both of them have huge crossrange. A characteristic which perhaps only one of them fully used...
(OTOH I don't know how non-installed life support (not to mention displays...) can be treated as indicative of whether or not a design is successful - especially for a space organisation demonstrating at the same time a capability of very long manned stays in orbit)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't saying it was, regarding second group - but those are either quite general subsystems which (while mostly non-trivial) the Soviets had a good hang of. Not very defining.
OTOH, to be more exact, it was a successful test of defining flight regime for such vehicle. And not exactly remote control (not like STS is typically piloted manually BTW - IIRC only one reentry was like that, and none of the launches of course)
Re: (Score:2)
Doing essentially the same thing in a needlessly complex way is not exactly a virtue.
(BTW, why the latest US Air Force "Shuttle", X-37, was launched using Russian engines?...)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, why the latest US Air Force "Shuttle", X-37, was launched using Russian engines?
Because they are cheap. They meet reliability standards and can certainly be able to take the rigor necessary for spaceflight, but have been produced at a cost which makes it hard to justify creating a new engine that would arguably cost more and do less. The production lines for some of those Russian spacecraft engines are still running, so some American spacecraft manufacturers are using Russian engines as a cost-savings move. They still have to meet the safety requirements and other related issues for
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to spaceflight that is pretty much true. That's the minimum useful payload to loft once you know what space looks like.
Re: (Score:3)
100 launches there have only been two disasters.
According to my official NASA calculator, that's a failure rate of only 0.2%. Not bad at all.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#The_metric.2FUS_customary_units_mix-up [wikipedia.org]
Your ignorance however is astronomical (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sorry sir, but it is YOUR ignorance that is showing here. A launch vehicle capable of getting a lot of mass as far as geostationary orbit is not simple either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And this is precisely why we need something that is actually a self-contained vehicle. The main sticking point right now seems to be functional scramjets to power it the majority of the way to low orbit, but that should be solved within 10-15 years at most.
Re: (Score:2)
It might end up as another exercise in futility, in the style of STS, for a long time.
Problem is, advances in material technology/etc. which could make a single-stage-to-orbit merely doable...also benefit "dumb rockets" greatly. "Dumb rockets" which know that the majority of kinetic energy gain must happen outside the atmosphere - so it gets out as quickly as possible. Which, when we take a take a serious look at any proposed spaceplane meant to replace them, end up at least as good.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take such non-fatal failure rate any day... (especially when comparing at which points in the timeline of given program a fatal or serious failures happened)
Re: (Score:2)
I will say that I've been rather impressed with the overall Soyuz safety record, and they have been able to demonstrate through actual usage of their launch escape system including one rather spectacular "flight" where the cosmonauts needed the LES to kick in on the launch pad itself. That a total loss of vehicle on the launch pad was non-fatal (to the passengers.... I'm not so sure about the ground crew, but that can be dealt with through a well crafted safety procedure) is an excellent sign of robustness
Re:hey, don't knock it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hey, don't knock it (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than those two, and a few other mishaps,
So what you're saying is that if we exclude every event where things went wrong, the US has a perfect record?
Tell me something, do you work for the Federal Reserve?
Re:hey, don't knock it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to know what "mountain" in the Marshall Islands you are talking about that would be suitable here? Most of that country is a bunch of coral atolls that are just a few meters above sea-level, and the combined land area of the entire country is about comparable to a small typical mid-western county in America, or one of the smaller counties in the UK. That isn't a whole lot of room to be able to build something on the scale you are talking about here. It is a fine place to launch rockets becau
Re:No surprise.. this is india after all (Score:4, Insightful)
Then, you'll probably explain how India managed to launch 30+ rockets successfully in the past, and launched one rocket successfully to the moon as well?
See, this is what I detest about Americans. The sheer smugness, ignorance, arrogance and incredible lack of knowledge is mind boggling. We have all this careful "analysis" and "observation" in the parent's post, and I'll bet my ass that this chap didn't know anything about the past record of the Indian space program and simply jumped in to post an inane comment, assuming that "hey, it's Eeeendiaaa, them tech support guys, laaats of them can't speak proper English, so how can they launch rockets?" Disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an American, and I detest some, maybe even many, Americans for much the same reasons that the rest of the world does. But we're not all like that - imagine how disgusted and embarrassed we are about some of the crap done in the name of the US?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, you'll probably explain how India managed to launch 30+ rockets successfully in the past, and launched one rocket successfully to the moon as well?
See, this is what I detest about Americans. The sheer smugness, ignorance, arrogance and incredible lack of knowledge is mind boggling. We have all this careful "analysis" and "observation" in the parent's post, and I'll bet my ass that this chap didn't know anything about the past record of the Indian space program and simply jumped in to post an inane comment, assuming that "hey, it's Eeeendiaaa, them tech support guys, laaats of them can't speak proper English, so how can they launch rockets?" Disgusting.
Either you are that stupid to not realize not all Americans are like, or you have been waiting for a "good" opportunity to level a disgusting generalization of us. Either way, you are not that much better from those you seek to criticize. I've meet quite a few tards from your own country (and from Pakistan) that claim as scientific stupid shit like the Romans couldn't do arithmetic while the Indians of the time could or some other inane shit to prop themselves above every other single race in the world.
I
Re:No surprise.. this is india after all (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Calm down, he's just frustrated that we don't like Cricket.
Yeah. Or soccer (I mean, football.)
Reading comprehension failure - you and others (Score:5, Insightful)
Or on the other hand perhaps he is not generalising to the entire population of two continents and you have failed to comprehend what it written. I take it as generalising to the poorly educated, ignorant, jingoistic portion of the population that would write an ignorant pile of steaming manure such as the post he replied to. Instead it appears you see the word "American", ignore the context, then think it is aimed at yourself, George Washington and apple pie.
He's not yelling at you, simply at the smug "USA is greatest and the rest are all monkeys yawl" in the post prior to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh.
People everywhere are short-sighted, mistake-making, bozos if you expect too much of them. We Americans have spent the last century parading around the globe talking about how high our ideals are. Often I've been in agreement with them, but we shouldn't be surprised if people hold us to some kinds of standards.
Detest, hate, these are very strong words. LIfe's too short to feel that way about anyone, if you can help it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. You can't possibly expect everyone to know that.
Those aren't nearly as interesting as the one that exploded on YouTube.
American children have a saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
American children have a saying...
'When you point a finger at me, three point back at you."
Re-read your rant and think about it.
Re: (Score:2)
American children have a saying...
'When you point a finger at me, three point back at you."
Re-read your rant and think about it.
Ha ... nowadays they point .38s, but hey, the principle's the same.
Re: (Score:3)
See, this is what I detest about Americans. The sheer smugness, ignorance, arrogance and incredible lack of knowledge is mind boggling.
So, we're both ignorant and suffering from an incredible lack of knowledge? Wow, we must all be pretty stupid then, low-IQ sub-humans who can, at best, feed ourselves and perhaps learn to tie our own shoes. I guess all the scientific, technological and military progress we've made in the past century is just a figment of your fevered imagination.
See, this is what I detest about bigoted non-Americans. Matter of fact, I detest it in anyone, from any society. This bland assumption that one can extrapolate
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but if you want to hear real bigotry against Indians, you have to talk to Pakistanis.
Truly amazing some of things I've heard them say.
But, to be fair, I've certainly heard some pretty bigoted remarks by Indians about Pakistanis.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't India get most of its rocket technology from the USSR?
And do you know where the USSR got most of their rocket technology? Yes, it was from the same source as the US got theirs.
Re: (Score:3)
Certainly not. A few components, early on in ISROs history - sure. But not "most of it".
According to this article, the earlier versions of this rocket used Russian engines, and they lost another one in April due to replacing Russian engines with Indian engines:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Indigenous-engines-bring-down-GSLV/articleshow/5814028.cms [indiatimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They do, it's just spelled "Pakistan".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, just like the amount of money America spends on wars keeps the American illiterate and homeless very happy, not to mention the immense benefit it is providing to the recession-hit debt-ridden American economy.
Yes and no. I applaud India for wanting to have the ability to launch satellites: the economic benefits from advanced weather prediction alone have been worth the investment. So investing in space is not automatically a matter of taking food from the mouths of starving children. Helping farmers produce more food, more reliably, does the exact opposite in fact.
Ultimately, the problem is one of critical mass, getting enough self-sustaining infrastructure in space so that we can begin to exploit resources e