India Launches Five Foreign Satellites 85
vasanth writes: "India has put into orbit five foreign satellites, including one built by France two from Canada and one each from Singapore and Germany. The PSLV (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle) has so far successfully launched 67 satellites, including 40 foreign ones, into space. The PSLV costs about 17 million USD and the cost is seen as a major advantage India has over other countries in terms of commercial launches. When talking about the cost of the project, the Prime Minister of India noted that the launch was cheaper than Hollywood film Gravity.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
When talking about the cost of the project,
They noted an innovative technology stack to launch the satellites. When asked what the major challenges were, Anil Gupta, chief scientist responded that getting the rubber band stretched far enough without breaking was, although common, still very challenging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I guess they actually care about getting things done, instead of posturing before the whole world as "the greatest nation on earth". Actually doing things works a lot better than to rely on past glory.
Manned mission please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Manned mission please... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is not technical as far as I know.
I remember reading that Slashdot tried it a billion years ago, even - but I'm not sure about that.
If you give every possible Unicode character available to anyone you get svatiskas, unwarranted impersonations by abusing nearly identical characters, and at the least Unicode goatse.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, sanitizing problematic characters seems like a far more reasonable solution than throwing the baby out with the bathwater because Unicode is scary.
HTML representation of foreign symbols on /. (Score:2)
Manned mission please... (Score:2, Interesting)
That was true until the GSAT-14 launch. Those guys have talked about their commitment to delivering a better GSLV Mark III, so it'll be awaited.
Technically, it doesn't make too much sense to send a human being as much as it makes to send a robotic creature down there. It's the same reason we use Drones and Surgical Arms. :-)
Perhaps we may require humans on a space station if Robots can't handle certain sensing tasks too well. But that's pretty much the scope of human beings out there. What we could really b
Re: (Score:2)
The reason you need people in space is that people adapt, improvise and overcome obstacles when things go wrong, and Murphy rides on every mission. Look at Apollo 13. Because there were people on that spacecraft, they were able to complete the minimum mission, getting themselves home alive. Of course if this had it been two robotic vehicles, we could have just said they're only robots and let them fly away like the Voyagers. The point is that people adapt. Look at the Mars Exploration Rovers. They are runni
Great for India (Score:5, Interesting)
Other nations used military funding, the private sector, other governments and imports to try and boost their own domestic projects.
So many failed as the cash needed never could make up for what India fully understood from the 1960's: its about not getting ahead of your own domestic science.
Now India can enjoy lower cost launch systems without needing any other nations help, costly imports or permission.
"Indian Space Research Organisation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
> A power grid that can't be kept up reliably? That's not something customers want to see when you're trying to convince them to let you launch multi-million dollar pieces of equipment up into space.
Wanna bet? Go to Indian forums and try to find people complaining that no space projects should go on until they get uninterrupted power supply.
Don't do space projects that get us (or help get in near future) profits in foreign exchange said no Indian ever.
Re: (Score:2)
This is simply not true at all. There is at least one state, Texas, where electricity prices are set by the companies that generate power and the companies that deliver it. Remarkably, those companies have built capacity as it is needed including wind and hydro sources, and all the while made a profit. Sorry to hear
Re: (Score:2)
He is talking about states in India, not US.
Re: (Score:2)
Jokes aside, many Indians just use laptops and 3G data cards which have quite cheap and affordable plans compared to US (start at $2 a month). So power cuts don't really effect computer use. If you are middle class in India, you probably might also have battery backup or a generator subscription for the house essentials.
Re: (Score:2)
True. Indian Internet is not great for heavy media usage. It is quite adequate for posting to "forums" the OP was talking about.
The broadband plans I have seen have x speed, a relatively low cap, but an unlimited x/2 speed hence after. Not too bad. The cheapest broadband I have seen is 1 mbps for $8, 20 GB cap, further usage is unlimited at 512 kbps. I don't recall what the more expensive plans offer. Low-cost, lower-tier alternatives are more important for India. India's primary concern ATM is access, not
Re: (Score:3)
A power grid that can't be kept up reliably? That's not something customers want to see when you're trying to convince them to let you launch multi-million dollar pieces of equipment up into space.
Their customers don't care as long as the launch facility can operate when the locals are in darkness. Companies have figured out that by operating in the third world they can still have first-world conditions in their manufacturing facilities when it improves efficiency, but not have to pay for their employees or the rest of the country to have it when they go home. If you operate in the US you have to pay all kinds of taxes (or pay employees who have to be able to afford taxes) so that the city streets
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one was judging a country based on their rocket launching capability. People were appreiciating the efficient and economic rocket launching capability and the efforts that went into developing it. You are one who is doing the judging of an entire country, rather than just the particular achievement reported posted in the article.
As for all the problems you describe as being present in India, as an Indian I thank you for your concern. But seeing as you aren't doing that much to help us solve them, you can
Re: (Score:3)
Further, this is a high-technology field in which India can excel and become a prominent provider. This brings national prestige, foreign investment and support, provides (some) high-value jobs, and fosters better education. No, it's not going to solve India's problems over night, but it can help.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK tried that with Skynet (satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] They had to use U.S. assets and that was very interesting for the UK during the Falklands War.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the UK (well the government---and all major parties are pretty muich indistinguishable in this regard as well as others) do this but with an extra flourish.
First they have the expense of funding the development of a home grown system. This usually works becuase the UK has a large economy, good education, first world logistics and etc.
The someone decides it's "cheaper to buy from America" so they scrap all the locally developed stuff and lose the institutional knowledge as well as let the existing s
Re:Great for India (Score:5, Insightful)
they still can't clean up their garbage, their sewage, or feed, house, and clothe 90% of their population. They can't even keep the power grid they do have up and running reliably.
You know what can fund them? Launching satellites for other countries, commercially, can. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I would have modded you "+1 Insightful" instead of funny. As I mentioned above, this is a high-technology field that brings national prestige, fosters education, and can bring in foreign money. You are spot on.
Re: (Score:2)
So? NASA and the US military wasn't shy about using Australian technology in scramjets recently because it's not a pissing contest of "must be invented here". It's about getting stuff done.
I could use a far more obvious example of where US rocketry "still had to study the work of others who pioneered it" but some would consider it a Godwin.
Re: (Score:2)
See? This only proves how much we don't need NASA. Daggone big gubmint boondoggles!
Now we can add NASA to the privatization list by letting GE or Boeing or someone outsource our space program to India!
(i'm merely impersonating other inviduals around here; i in no way believe we should actually do this)
Re: (Score:2)
They studied hard and ensured they fully understood every aspect of basic satellite lunch systems domestically before moving to the next stage.
I can imagine an Indian scientist thinking "Hmmm... what do satellites like to eat for lunch, and what type of system can we build to feed it to them?"
Re: (Score:2)
In a way, I have no issue with their manipulating their money, but object, when their economy booms and they continue to keep the manipulation going, along with blocking other nations.
Re: (Score:1)
665 million Indians don't have a private toilet. Way to prioritize, India.
The "whitey's on the moon" argument looks wierd here.
Start launching... (Score:1)
Is it true, or is it another lie. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You know Russell Peters is a comedian, right? :-) I'll wait for the meta-episode where Peters makes fun of people who got suckered into believing what he said.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes a lot of sense (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It really depends what your target inclination is. In general for a non-polar orbit, you want a launch complex with a latitude close to that inclination to minimize plane changes. This is why the ISS is at 51.65 degrees, to make it "easily" accessible from Baikonur. So yes, Sriharikota's proximity to the equator will be beneficial for low-inclination (near-equatorial) launches.
This particular launch, however, was to a sun-synchronous polar orbit. Your launch complex's latitude is much less important when la
Lauch cheaper than the film Gravity . . . ? (Score:2)
the Prime Minister of India noted that the launch was cheaper than Hollywood film Gravity.
That seems like a wacky comparison to me.
Ok, but maybe Gravity made more money than their launch?
Or, maybe they didn't actually do the launch, but just faked it in a film, like those folks who claim that the Apollo landings were fake films made by Stanley Kubrick in Area 51 . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why soo much hate (Score:1)
Easy to do, when you manipulate the money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uniformed troll is uninformed, News at 11.
BTW, here you go. [indianexpress.com]