With Chandrayaan-2 Launch, India's ISRO Shoots For the Moon on a Shoe-String Budget (techcrunch.com) 153
India took a giant leap in its space program on Monday after its space agency launched a spacecraft that is scheduled to touch down on the Moon in September. From a report: The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), which is India's equivalent of NASA, confirmed the successful launch of the spacecraft as the nation inches closer to become only the fourth country -- after the United States, China, and the Soviet Union -- to land a spacecraft on the Moon. Chandrayaan-2 aims to land on a plain surface that covers the ground between two of the Moon's craters, Simpelius N and Manzinus C. The spacecraft was originally scheduled to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh on July 15, but ISRO postponed it less than 20 minutes ahead of the deadline citing a "technical glitch." ISRO said it resolved the issue last week.
Everything about India's homegrown lunar mission -- dubbed Chandrayaan-2 (Sanskrit for "moon vehicle") -- is a technological marvel. The spacecraft -- which is sitting atop the country's most powerful rocket to date, a Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle called Mark III -- is carrying an orbiter, a lunar lander called Vikram and six-wheeled rover Pragyan (Sanskrit for "wisdom"). In early September, the lander, which is named after Vikram Sarabhai, the father of ISRO, is scheduled to detach from the orbiter. Until then, Chandrayaan-2 will embark on a slow journey to the Moon, staying in an elliptical orbit. The mission's budget is just $141 million, significantly lower than those of other countries, and less than half of the recently released blockbuster "Avengers: Endgame." The orbiter is designed to operate for at least one year, but lander and rover are expected to operate for just a couple of weeks.
Everything about India's homegrown lunar mission -- dubbed Chandrayaan-2 (Sanskrit for "moon vehicle") -- is a technological marvel. The spacecraft -- which is sitting atop the country's most powerful rocket to date, a Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle called Mark III -- is carrying an orbiter, a lunar lander called Vikram and six-wheeled rover Pragyan (Sanskrit for "wisdom"). In early September, the lander, which is named after Vikram Sarabhai, the father of ISRO, is scheduled to detach from the orbiter. Until then, Chandrayaan-2 will embark on a slow journey to the Moon, staying in an elliptical orbit. The mission's budget is just $141 million, significantly lower than those of other countries, and less than half of the recently released blockbuster "Avengers: Endgame." The orbiter is designed to operate for at least one year, but lander and rover are expected to operate for just a couple of weeks.
Interesting order of countries (Score:4, Insightful)
Unnecessary propaganda even at the finest details.
Re: Interesting order of countries (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, for uncrewed moon landings, which includes planned crash landings, the correct order of countries seems to be (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing):
Soviet Union (Luna 2, 1959), USA (Ranger 4, 1962), Japan (Hiten, 1993), Europe (SMART-1, 2006), India (MIP, 2008), and China (Chang'e 1, 2009).
Re: Interesting order of countries (Score:1)
And the order of countries for uncrewed soft landings seems to be:
Soviet Union (Luna 9, Feb 1966), USA (Surveior 1, May 1966), and China (Chang'e 3, Dec 2013).
Re: (Score:2)
Which landings were nothing more than a political stunt?
The ones you didn't hear about.
Re: (Score:2)
Which landings were nothing more than a political stunt?
The ones you didn't hear about.
The problem with obsession about who was first is that apparently nothing happens afterwords - no point, because someone was first.
Re: (Score:3)
Which landings were nothing more than a political stunt?
Child (the assumption being that someone willing to take the moon landing that far out of context can't possibly have reached puberty), calling the moon landing a "political stunt" is the height of minimization. The US and the Soviet Union were locked in a "cold war" at the time. They were battling to demonstrate to the so-called "3rd world" nations which one was technically superior. This battle not only forestalled what would have been actual battles with weaponry that would have ended humanity, but it
Re:Lol, "... and the Soviet Union". (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lol, "... and the Soviet Union". (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really surprising, Germany lost 8.2% of their population and most of those in the final phase of the war fighting all the way back to Berlin - in the early days they were brutally defeating everyone. The Soviet Union lost 13.7% of their population despite being much bigger, of course that's a nation on the brink of collapse. With no offense to the 400k US soldiers that died in WW2 it's hard to imagine the sheer carnage on the East Front.
To translate to the US today (pop. 327 million), imagine you're invaded and you've lost 18 million soldiers. That's everyone on active duty, everyone in the reserves and 16 million more drafted out of the general population. It's US losses in Vietnam multiplied by 180 (scaled for population). Also another 27 million civilian casualties so like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose and Austin wiped off the map. That's how badly the Soviet Union was trashed by the end of the war.
Re: (Score:2)
To translate to the US today (pop. 327 million), imagine you're invaded and you've lost 18 million soldiers. That's everyone on active duty, everyone in the reserves and 16 million more drafted out of the general population. It's US losses in Vietnam multiplied by 180 (scaled for population). Also another 27 million civilian casualties so like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose and Austin wiped off the map. That's how badly the Soviet Union was trashed by the end of the war.
Not to worry, I'm certain that the rest of the world would step up to help us..... or maybe gloat until it was their turn.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to worry, I'm certain that the rest of the world would step up to help us.....
I dunno. The sheer terror of Canada's bear cavalry may prevent the rest of the world from entering the war on the US side.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says we would need any help at all. We have the best armed civilian population in the world. If someone was foolish enough to invade the US it would turn into a very successful TV reality show the minute the invasion started. The government could set up a bounty fee schedule for every foreign invader killed by a concerned citizen. Insurgency activities in the US would make the attempts in the middle east look childish.
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union would have lost against Germany without US lend-lease aid. Don't take my word for it, look at Khrushchev's memoirs.
Don't forget Great Britain would have fallen as well. For as much hatred as Murrica gets, I think that we should have let old Adolf take over. Apparently that's what Russia, Great Britain, Farnce and all those countries wanted, and once again we 'murrican asshats stepped in and fucked everything up for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was a menace to society. No one really liked him, except his cohorts.
He extremely quickly transformed Germany into a totalitarian state.
I doubt the followers were ever over 10% - 20% of the population.
10% of opertunists who thought robbing jews plundering conquered nations make them rich.
A typical German soldier was a conscript who would have been shot if he had objected to anything.
Just exactly like an US conscript sent into the (french) Vietnam war.
Re: (Score:2)
Hitler was a menace to society. No one really liked him, except his cohorts. He extremely quickly transformed Germany into a totalitarian state. I doubt the followers were ever over 10% - 20% of the population.
I'm not certain I am following you. Are you trying to say that GB did not need the Lend/Lease program and would have defeated the Germans without it?
Re: (Score:2)
In the federal election of July 1932, the NSDAP won 37.3% of the popular vote...
Re: (Score:3)
The Soviet Union would have lost against Germany without US lend-lease aid. Don't take my word for it, look at Khrushchev's memoirs.
"I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."
From Page 638.
https://books.google.com/books... [google.com]
Barbarossa is also a textbook example of both brilliant planning and horrible planning. German reconnaissance units actually got far enough that they could see the Kremlin towers and even the outer stations of the Moscow metro. The the rainy season/winter hit, and that was effectively the war right there. During the initial drive to Moscow, Hitler diverted several divisions from Army Group Center to attack the Ukraine which slowed down the offensive so that it was winter by the time they got to Moscow.
Re: (Score:1)
More ambitious follow-up to 2008 mission (Score:5, Informative)
Chandrayaan-1, launched, in 2008 was just an orbiter and did its job and did its job well.
The just launched Chandrayaan-2 includes an orbiter, a lander, and a rover.
Well done, India. Will be following this story.
Re:More ambitious follow-up to 2008 mission (Score:5, Funny)
The just launched Chandrayaan-2 includes an orbiter, a lander, and a rover.
. . . and Chandrayaan-3 is rumored to add to that a call center and an outsourcing center . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing we'll have to wait for Chandrayaan-4 for them to set up the first Lunar Kwik-E-Mart [wikipedia.org], eh?
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly it too.
If India would produce and locally use sanitation and civil engineers at the same rate it produces "technology" people, it would have a sanitation system that even George Costanzi would be willing to travel to India to use.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/... [globalcitizen.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"would have a sanitation system that even George Costanzi would be willing to travel to India to use."
One George Costanza.
Two George Constanzi.
Three
Re: (Score:3)
No no no, it goes: "Hér er Georg Costanzi, um Georg Costanza, frá Georg Costanza, til Georgs Costanza". Simple masculine declension.
Some would complain about the C and Z, but that's just the bezt way to spell it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that is why they include a comparison to the budget of Avengers: Endgame. That is a silly, meaningless budget comparison at best, but maybe just an attempt to say "ha you also spend lots of money on things that don't improve issues with your country" type of thing.
Or just maybe it is to give context that a movie is $300m in USA, a space program is $Xb to go to the moon, where as there it is $150m.
Kind of like the ads saying "you can buy this house for the price of a new car!" or "life insurance for the price of a coffee a week"
People are so quick to take everything as an insult to them.
Re: More ambitious follow-up to 2008 mission (Score:4, Informative)
The sanitation issue in India is for a large part a cultural rather than a financial one. Not something you're going to change in a hurry, and money isn't going to help you there. A good way to fix this is education, something which they are working on, and where money can help. However (and I am getting really tired of saying it) their space budget is a tiny, tiny fraction of their rural development budget, which includes education and sanitation. Stopping the space program and adding that bit of money to sanitation and education budgets is incredibly short-sighted.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh for the love of... No one is arguing that it is acceptable. However not everyone agrees that they should spend *nothing* on science and technology until every citizen has a working toilet. That kind of thinking is just stupid.
But there are plenty of stupid people around.
The sanitation issue in India is for a large part a cultural rather than a financial one. Not something you're going to change in a hurry, and money isn't going to help you there.
Bingo! It isn't that epscially rural Indians are incapable of digging latrines. It's that their culture does not see anything wrong with dropping troy and pinching a loaf wherever they happen to be at the moment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
What is gross and disgusting and unsanitary to most of us is not a problem, it's still unsanitary, not matter what their culture says. The second vid, pooping on the beach is just w
Re: (Score:2)
What does unite a country more?
A) sitting on a dirty government funded toilett in a rural town with 5000 people
B) sitting at night in front of the mayours house - the only one who had a TV - watching a launch of your countries moon rocket
??? (Same rural town)
Can only be topped by seeing it landing
Re: (Score:2)
Go back 50 or 100 years and toilets were not ubiquitous in many major countries, including the US where the outhose was a standard staple in many rural areas. The reason there are some places without toilets today is mostly political (as in, who will pay for, who gets the tax bill, etc). When you have a desparately poor region then you will find living situations that don't meet certain modern standards, and it stays this way because the solution is to spend money.
Right now I know of several homeless camp
Re: (Score:2)
There are still plenty of places in Appalachia where a hole in the ground is the toilet. Two people living in a rotting house, 3 miles from the nearest mountain "road" can't command but so much political clout to get sanitation lines run out to them.
Re: (Score:2)
There are still plenty of places in Appalachia where a hole in the ground is the toilet. Two people living in a rotting house, 3 miles from the nearest mountain "road" can't command but so much political clout to get sanitation lines run out to them.
Do you have the numbers?
Re: (Score:2)
You make a law fining everyone peeing against a tree for $50.
You set up toiletts run by the town that cost $1 to use.
Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Go back 50 or 100 years and toilets were not ubiquitous in many major countries, including the US where the outhose was a standard staple in many rural areas.
Even then, rural outhouses were there in a large part due to a 19th century government program in education and construction to get them built in rural locations.
Re: (Score:3)
Take your poo to the luna!
Too late . . . the Moon is already "full of it":
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/21... [metro.co.uk]
differences in budget (Score:4, Insightful)
i would like to know where the difference in budget comes from.
are they using new techniques, which are much cheaper then what everybody else is using, or is their scope much smaller allowing for a smaller budget or are they cutting corners here and there, which could make this a much more dangerous affair.?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about the probe and rover side of things, but on the rocket side, it's fairly cheap, but not abnormally so. They're apparently paying 375M crore, which is $56M USD, for a launch vehicle that does 8 tonnes to LEO and 4 tonnes to GTO. By contrast, Falcon 9 is $62M for a 22,8t LEO / 8,3t GTO vehicle. So practically the same price, but with a far larger payload.
That said, NASA does everything expensively - including launch contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
You have quoted the cost of a reusable SpaceX's Falcon 9 of $62M. If the SpaceX Falcon 9 is an expendable launch then the price is much higher and I think it is over $100M.
The Indian rocket is expendable and its launch cost is cheap when compared to other expendable rockets.
SpaceX is disrupting the space launch market by using reusable rockets to bring costs down. If India could create reusable rockets then they have a good chance of being cheaper than SpaceX.
Re:differences in budget (Score:4, Insightful)
The Indian rocket is expendable because, of course, it cannot be reused. The payloads listed for both rockets are at the prices listed for both rockets.
I'm sure, all else being equal, India's reusable rockets could be cheaper than SpaceX's, in the same way that Afghanistan's rockets could be cheaper than India's. But all things are not equal. Until there's actually an Indian reusable stack to compare (and let's not forget that they're facing a moving target - SpaceX considers the Falcon series to be obsolete tech and is moving to Starship, which it sees as far cheaper per launch, despite the much larger payloads), it's a pointless hypothetical.
To put it another way: it's the pace of innovation that matters above all else here, not labour costs.
Re: (Score:2)
"That said, NASA does everything expensively - including launch contracts."
That's just for porc, these are Vegetarians.
Re: (Score:2)
Among other things, the personnel costs are considerably lower.
Rocket scientists only make $12K when I last checked.
Re: (Score:2)
And what race is the statement "ist" against anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
i would like to know where the difference in budget comes from.
To a large extent, it's going to be labor costs. They're many times lower in India. Otherwise, it could be some smart engineering, the way SpaceX is doing it today.
Re:differences in budget (Score:5, Interesting)
Labour costs are a very small part of it. The big savings are by using tried and tested technologies, aiming a bit lower, and by being smart.
Their rocket isn't huge and the route they are taking to the moon is fairly long and slow. The rover is only 27kg. The satellite they sent to Mars was only 15kg, on a mission costing only $75M. Obviously it didn't have as many instruments as bigger ones, but the ones it did have were well chosen. Plus they could have sent 10 for what NASA paid for one.
They re-use a lot of tech too. Satellites re-use the engines from boosters. They didn't want to wait for a bigger engine for their Mars mission, so used a gravitational slingshot instead to gain the necessary delta-v.
ISRO make great use of computer simulation too, where as others prefer practical tests. So instead of building 3 of everything for testing and ground-based experiments to help solve in-flight problems, they build computer models and only one physical vehicle.
Re: (Score:3)
Labour costs are a very small part of it.
That sounds rather implausible. Considering that in this field, practically everything is labor costs (there's not a lot of material being used and the added value per kilogram of resulting hardware is tremendous, and propellant costs are minuscule per mission flown as well), a massive decrease in labor costs *has* to correspond to a massive decrease in total costs because transforming that small amount of raw materials into resulting hardware, both in unique design and in small-scale manufacturing, costs y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chang'e 3 rover was planned to last 3 months and ended up working for 959 days
Define "working". It became immobile during the second lunar night, which is kind of an issue with a mobile robot. For comparison, Lunokhod 2 operated as designed for five lunar days, Lunokhod 1 for eleven lunar days.
Re: (Score:2)
Difference from what? The comparable US program was the Surveyor Program, which was the first *soft* landing by a US craft. The entire program cost was $469 million, spread over seven launches. The cost per mission was $67 million 1966 dollars, or $530/mission in 2019 dollars.
So India has achieved a cost reduction over the US Surveyor missions of 3.75x.
This is an apples to oranges comparison though. The Indian mission is far more elaborate and capable than Surveyor, but when Surveyor was designed, nobody
Re: (Score:2)
They hired Indians to do the software development. So you know, half the price, quarter the quality.
Re: (Score:2)
"are they using new techniques, which are much cheaper then what everybody else is using, or is their scope much smaller allowing for a smaller budget or are they cutting corners here and there, which could make this a much more dangerous affair.?"
A few years ago we learned, that an iPad is enough to travel from the backside of the moon to earth.
Re: (Score:2)
You should look up purchasing power parity, and then reconvert the cost of the launch from rupees using that. Start by multiplying the cost by about 4. Gives you a much more realistic view of things. Essentially the rupee (along with the yuan, rouble, and most other currencies not used as or directly tied to the principal trading currencies) are undervalued in international transactions. Sometimes hugely.
Then also remember when someone says people in poor countries live on $1 a day, $10 a day or whatever,
Western media continue to amaze... (Score:2, Insightful)
consider the headline...
With Chandrayaan-2 Launch, India's ISRO Shoots For the Moon on a Shoe-String Budget
Which Google defines as..."a small amount of money which may be an inadequate amount to fund the intended purpose of its use in full...
Instead of congratulating the Indians for this achievement, given the fact that India does not foment chaos in distant lands like one great power we all know, they choose to "rub it in" by emphasizing the so called "shoe-string budget."
Really? Every nation has got problems. I congratulate the Indians for joining the exclusive club of the few.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
they choose to "rub it in" by emphasizing the so called "shoe-string budget."
You read too much into it. Shoestring means "small OR inadequate" I'm not sure why you bolded one of the possible choices, presumably applying your own bias to fit your narrative.
In any case this is rubbing it into America and their wasteful capital processes of government projects. Landing on the moon on a shoestring budget is high praise for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with native english speakers is: a noticeable amount of them are americans who don't speak/write english. Oops!
Re: (Score:2)
In America and in western media, saying that someone did something on a shoe string budget is one of the higher forms of praise. It's not even slightly derogatory, more the opposite.
So did the editor.
Re: (Score:2)
Many times this.
You're not going to get anything done on a shoestring budget, unless you're smart, dedicated, and have a VERY clear idea of what it is you are trying to accomplish. You simply don't have the resources for waste. More than being a compliment, most people I know stand in awe of those capable of doing such things.
I welcome India to the new season of the Great Space Race. I wish them all the luck in the world in establishing a moonbase, if for no other reason than to shame the "great powers"
Water on moon (Score:5, Interesting)
Chandrayaan-1 provided the first actual evidence of water on moon.
As for the hate speech that inevitably follows these threads: India is a complex country, more like a continent than a country and hence called a subcontinent. Much of the bad news you hear about India is localized to a few states. States in India are halfway to being countries, but hardly anyone outside India understands their identities.
The southern states in India perform (at least in comparison to Indian laggard states) like E/W coasts in US perform compared to say Mississippi in US. For instance, the few southern states do much of India's IT and Science and have European fertility rates. Waiting for laggards to catch up before attempting any higher order challenges will mean India will never break out of its colonial mold.
India's space program also fuels its commercial space ventures. Last I checked, it was a net profit maker, not a burden on tax payers.
Interestingly, the program is not run by India's brightest (graduates of its IITs), who mostly seem to continue education in US and Europe and mostly work there, but by the next brightest. This has been a source of contention in the country - why pay for brain drain?
Re:Water on moon (Score:4, Interesting)
To be more specific, it found evidence of hydroxyl groups - although probably from water. Currently it does not appear that there's any solid bulk water ice, at least near the surface, anywhere on the moon (although there is still some dispute). On the other side of the coin, it's been argued that that there might not be any water ice at all - that what might be present is hydroxylated minerals. The leading view at present seems to be that regardless of hydroxylated minerals, that there's probably grains of water ice mixed into the lunar regolith in these locations. LCROSS in particular provided strong evidence to this regard.
Honestly, for any lunar ISRU, this is probably the best option. You don't want to have to mine through hard slabs of ice; simply heating regolith would be far easier.
Re: (Score:2)
ISRO pay is said to be not good
Re: (Score:3)
Chandrayaan-1 provided the first actual evidence of water on moon.
Not Clementine? That was a pretty big deal back then.
India is a complex country, more like a continent than a country and hence called a subcontinent.
I'm pretty sure that this has more to do with geology of the area rather than with the complexity of India. It would still be a subcontinent even if there were no India. Hell, for the same reason it would be a subcontinent even if there were no people around.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for laggards to catch up before attempting any higher order challenges will mean India will never break out of its colonial mold.
They're actually doing pretty good on both [thehindubusinessline.com]. There are lots of things that could be better, but they're rapidly improving. Sure there are social issues to deal with aka "I never learned to read/write, didn't have electricity, didn't have toilets, we were fine without your fancy civilization and our kids will be fine too" but tradition has lost that battle pretty much everywhere except for the Amish. India is far past critical mass where they'll fix their own country, even if they'll have their hillbilly/redn
Quality Video (Score:3)
TLDR: I'm spoiled by SpaceX launch videos.
I tried searching Youtube for a video of the launch. Wow did I find a bunch of videos... which are mostly 3rd-party reposts of a couple news stations' 720p coverage of the launch. And THOSE consist of cameras pointed awkwardly at video monitors showing telemetry, and shots of the control room with groups of presumably ISRO people doing not much of interest. The cameras onboard the rocket update at about 1fps. Eventually the video monitors showed what was obviously a computer simulation of what was going on (or was supposed to be going on, perhaps) yet the camera lingered on it as if it were the actual rocket viewed from the side. The news videos had newsstation watermarks and tickers and title bars and whatnot cluttering up the frame.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.isro.gov.in/gslv-mk-iii-m1-chandrayaan-2-mission/lift-and-onboard-camera-view-of-gslv-mkiii-m1-chandrayaan2
Re: (Score:2)
You're the first with the stereotypes. Congrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Like in your post?
Re: (Score:2)
"Shoestring" budget (Score:1)
It might be cheap for a lunar mission, but at $141 it's double the amount of money the UK are giving India in foreign aid this year.
Can someone tell me why a country that has a lunar space program is still allowed to ask for and receive "aid" from other countries? Whilst the mission might be an amazing technical achievement, surely it should be frowned upon when the begging bowls are still out in full force.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Same reason organizations "donate" to politicians: influence peddling.
National Pride (Score:3)
When the US and Europe tried cheaper approaches with Mars probes, the probes usually failed.
Perhaps one can argue that if you can do 70% of the science at 33% of the cost, you come out ahead by using quantity instead of quality.
However, it does make for national embarrassments, and also makes staffing more expensive because probes are more unpredictable, resulting in layoffs and rush-hires.
Maybe if India tries it enough they'll eventually get good at it, but they may have some ugly embarrassments along the way.
Why so much hate? (Score:1)
I do not understand why people bring poverty and other things into it? Every country has problems, If India could spend better into public health or US could cut down military to help homelessness let the politicians decide or open some social issues thread. let us focus on the technical aspect here.
India can do a lot of things low costs because of a following reasons
1. Labor cost - It is not only how much the scientists/engineers getting paid. It is on every level where human touch is involved.
2. Tested te
Sanitation first? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Which means us Americans can't be friends to ourselves...
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe they should solve their sanitation problems first.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/... [globalcitizen.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should solve their sanitation problems first.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/... [globalcitizen.org]
And maybe the USA could solve its mass poverty, public health, drug problems, etc, etc. before buying any more F35s.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should solve their sanitation problems first.
https://www.globalcitizen.org/... [globalcitizen.org]
And maybe the USA could solve its mass poverty, public health, drug problems, etc, etc. before buying any more F35s.
Perhaps the rest of the world could teach us ignorant 'murricans how they have acheived no one in poverty, perfect public health, and no drug problems.
I'm certain you can provide the citations on that. Perhaps 'murrica isn't as poor, unhealthy, or drug addicted as whoever's propaganda machine is teaching you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certain you can provide the citations on that. Perhaps 'murrica isn't as poor, unhealthy, or drug addicted as whoever's propaganda machine is teaching you.
A simple search on the WHO website says otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certain you can provide the citations on that. Perhaps 'murrica isn't as poor, unhealthy, or drug addicted as whoever's propaganda machine is teaching you.
A simple search on the WHO website says otherwise.
I went there. https://www.who.int/ [who.int] Simple search? I typed United States and got this : https://www.who.int/search?que... [who.int] Aside from a strange data presentation page, the WHO is remarkably scant on the USA. I found a page of causes of deaths - https://www.who.int/news-room/... [who.int] but it is arranged by income. As a person who has apparently dound the data you claim for the USA, howzabout helping this idiot with a citation. I've been searching for a fair while now They are having a walk in New York.
Hey
Re: Oh, sorry (Score:1)
We did it pretty well on many fronts by then we opened the doors for orcs and Muslims to take everything. / Sweden.
Norway, Finland and Iceland still exist though.
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe the USA could solve its mass poverty, public health, drug problems, etc, etc. before buying any more F35s.
Most of us have a reasonable place to shit, and are willing to shit in such a place if one is available.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that no one is holding out the purchase of jets as a national accomplishment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should solve their sanitation problems first.
Like they did in Los Angeles, you mean ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they can clean up the American shit that was dumped there.
Probably better to start with shit in India and work their way up to the moon.
Re: Oh, sorry (Score:1)
Are you talking about the USA?