India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/14/world/asia/india-moon-landing.html
220 comments
When US was spending billions on Minuteman and Apollo missions, there were many problems in America, including poverty. Not sure? ask the African Americans in the south from that time. However, very little energy was spent on questioning whether spending in space was right thing to do.
If developing countries spend a miniscule of their budget ( ISRO budget less than 2%), there is cynicism. I think what India is doing is great and is great for improving India's technical abilities and India doesn't need to answer what it chooses to do with its money.
If developing countries spend a miniscule of their budget ( ISRO budget less than 2%), there is cynicism. I think what India is doing is great and is great for improving India's technical abilities and India doesn't need to answer what it chooses to do with its money.
>However, very little energy was spent on questioning whether spending in space was right thing to do.
That's not true. Public opinion about the moon missions was divided throughout the whole program, and a lot of effort was spent debating it. It is only in retrospect that it seems like a no-brainer, because everyone who was against it has been forgotten and we know it was a success.
That's not true. Public opinion about the moon missions was divided throughout the whole program, and a lot of effort was spent debating it. It is only in retrospect that it seems like a no-brainer, because everyone who was against it has been forgotten and we know it was a success.
That is great. However did you guys have a debate about US poverty after every Apollo mission? What about after you buy every F35? The cost of this Indian mission is about the cost of 1 F35.
BTW, many decades back Indians also deliberated, and only then established ISRO.
Also, frankly, that's a question for Indians to debate and not a big fan of NY times casually questioning the judgement of that spending without giving it an elaborate treatment. I have seen this multiple times. India launched Mars craft, but there is poverty. India launches 100+ satellites in one mission, but there is poverty. Its irrelevant at that instant and seems only to diminish India's aspirations.
May be some of this journalists can take a look at Indian Budget, study it deeply, and find where the government can spend more wisely. I bet they will find more wasteful spending than the investment in ISRO and that may be helpful for the public to know.
Also, frankly, that's a question for Indians to debate and not a big fan of NY times casually questioning the judgement of that spending without giving it an elaborate treatment. I have seen this multiple times. India launched Mars craft, but there is poverty. India launches 100+ satellites in one mission, but there is poverty. Its irrelevant at that instant and seems only to diminish India's aspirations.
May be some of this journalists can take a look at Indian Budget, study it deeply, and find where the government can spend more wisely. I bet they will find more wasteful spending than the investment in ISRO and that may be helpful for the public to know.
> However did you guys have a debate about US poverty after every Apollo mission?
Yes.
Yes.
See “Whitey on the Moon” for a great example of then-contemporary debate over the nation’s priorities.
I don't think it is a no-brainer even in retrospect. Much of it was cold war idiocy.
>However, very little energy was spent on questioning whether spending in space was right thing to do.
There was considerable energy spent questioning it and the project was almost scrapped numerous times. It also never had the support of the majority of Americans at any point until the actual launch itself:
https://www.academia.edu/179045/_Public_Opinion_Polls_and_Pe...
There was considerable energy spent questioning it and the project was almost scrapped numerous times. It also never had the support of the majority of Americans at any point until the actual launch itself:
https://www.academia.edu/179045/_Public_Opinion_Polls_and_Pe...
>When US was spending billions on Minuteman and Apollo missions, there were many problems in America, including poverty. Not sure? ask the African Americans in the south from that time. However, very little energy was spent on questioning whether spending in space was right thing to do.
Well, more energy should have been spent in that line of questioning.
But there was nationalism at play, and the race to compete with the USSR.
So, not really the best counter-example...
Well, more energy should have been spent in that line of questioning.
But there was nationalism at play, and the race to compete with the USSR.
So, not really the best counter-example...
But there was nationalism at play,
and the race to compete with the USSR.
Agreed. And the elephant in the room: All major space programs worldwide are an integral part of their respective country’s defense program. And were from inception.
India lives in a dangerous neighborhood, and protecting its citizens is by far the #1 priority of its government. The space program will always be well funded as a result.
India lives in a dangerous neighborhood, and protecting its citizens is by far the #1 priority of its government. The space program will always be well funded as a result.
Folks who suggest dealing with poverty before launching machines to space: the economy doesn't work like that, FYI.
If a country acquires deep technical know-how on engineering, it means the country can use it to spin out new industries and export that utility. That is how a country makes money.
After world war II, Germany didn't give away all the remaining money to war survivors. They built rock-solid airplane engines and cars, which in turn improved the economy overall.
If a country acquires deep technical know-how on engineering, it means the country can use it to spin out new industries and export that utility. That is how a country makes money.
After world war II, Germany didn't give away all the remaining money to war survivors. They built rock-solid airplane engines and cars, which in turn improved the economy overall.
The thing that irritates me more than anything about the argument that sending people to space is a bad idea is the unique bias people have against space technologies.
No-one ever says "We spend billions on Football; let's spend it on poor people instead", or "We spend billions on the music and film industries, let's shut those down and instead tax everyone for the average entertainment spend and send the proceeds to developing nations". Or defense for that matter.
Hell, you hardly even hear people say that about other, dubiously cost-effective science projects like the LHC.
No-one ever says "We spend billions on Football; let's spend it on poor people instead", or "We spend billions on the music and film industries, let's shut those down and instead tax everyone for the average entertainment spend and send the proceeds to developing nations". Or defense for that matter.
Hell, you hardly even hear people say that about other, dubiously cost-effective science projects like the LHC.
The difference is people voluntarily pay for football tickets and TV/online subscriptions. Same with music. They are self sustaining industries.
Experimental space flight is coming directly from tax payers and public funding. I still think it’s a worthy use of public funds because we get so much out of it that is intangible while supporting both scientific research and some of the most advanced R&D work on the planet (which is fed back into the economy in many ways).
But I still think it’s healthy for people to question it when their local day-to-day problems seem so much bigger than the universes, which is abstract and studied by academics and advanced private industry who aren’t their working class neighbours. Which is a big reason why we have elected officials to make balanced policy.
Experimental space flight is coming directly from tax payers and public funding. I still think it’s a worthy use of public funds because we get so much out of it that is intangible while supporting both scientific research and some of the most advanced R&D work on the planet (which is fed back into the economy in many ways).
But I still think it’s healthy for people to question it when their local day-to-day problems seem so much bigger than the universes, which is abstract and studied by academics and advanced private industry who aren’t their working class neighbours. Which is a big reason why we have elected officials to make balanced policy.
“They are self sustaining industries.”
So, you don’t know about all the subsidies for stadiums, etc?
https://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/news/companies/nfl-taxpayer...
So, you don’t know about all the subsidies for stadiums, etc?
https://money.cnn.com/2015/01/30/news/companies/nfl-taxpayer...
People complain about stadium subsidies all the time. I’d presume the amount of people who complain about them would be somewhat proportional to the amount of people who know they exist.
I am very much against the subsidies for sports but (being from football country) there are many secondary effects why countries support it. From better population health to higher patriotism (international matches are only time people see the flag and anthem) and even crime rate. Its good for kids to have heroes/role models and sport heroes are usually the ones kids prefer.
In the USSR the cosmonauts were heroes.
Football isn't. We do spend billions paying for stadiums, and the infrastructure to allow people to drive to them.
> Experimental space flight is coming directly from tax payers and public funding.
Oh the irony.
Indian is giving tax, tax is getting spent on space flight, the said Indian is getting pumped.
Finger wagging by NYTimes.
Oh the irony.
Indian is giving tax, tax is getting spent on space flight, the said Indian is getting pumped.
Finger wagging by NYTimes.
> No-one ever says "We spend billions on Football; let's spend it on poor people instead"
That one is said constantly (at least in the US). It comes up as a matter of routine as it pertains to the extremely high salaries that professional athletes get paid and with regard to the construction of new stadiums (which often cost a billion dollars or more now, are frequently taxpayer subsidized, and are often replacing functional 30 year old stadiums).
The top 500 NBA, NFL and MLB players earn more in salary than the CEOs of the S&P 500. The MLB payroll is $4 billion for ~750 players. Just the top 30 players in the NBA are earning one billion dollars per year combined. NBA teams are spending near $4 billion per year on salaries for ~450 players, or around $8 to $9 million per player. The 32 NFL teams are spending nearly $6 billion per year.
Between the NBA, NFL and MLB, there is around $13 to $14 billion in salaries.
That one is said constantly (at least in the US). It comes up as a matter of routine as it pertains to the extremely high salaries that professional athletes get paid and with regard to the construction of new stadiums (which often cost a billion dollars or more now, are frequently taxpayer subsidized, and are often replacing functional 30 year old stadiums).
The top 500 NBA, NFL and MLB players earn more in salary than the CEOs of the S&P 500. The MLB payroll is $4 billion for ~750 players. Just the top 30 players in the NBA are earning one billion dollars per year combined. NBA teams are spending near $4 billion per year on salaries for ~450 players, or around $8 to $9 million per player. The 32 NFL teams are spending nearly $6 billion per year.
Between the NBA, NFL and MLB, there is around $13 to $14 billion in salaries.
Well the obvious difference is public vs private spending. People do complain about public funding for stadiums.
I did mention Defense and other science projects. 2 things that are mostly publically funded, although morally I don't see where the difference lies. If you believe in a kind of Peter Singer redistribution of wealth then why stop at public money.
But I'm willing to bet that if SpaceX or whoever ever do become fully self-sustaining, a large proportion of people will continue to view space technology as frivolous and unnecessary toys for rich people, instead of valuable research and development that helps everyone.
But I'm willing to bet that if SpaceX or whoever ever do become fully self-sustaining, a large proportion of people will continue to view space technology as frivolous and unnecessary toys for rich people, instead of valuable research and development that helps everyone.
I agree generally (when the two are entirely separated), however on the actual context the interesting thing about so much taxpayer subsidization for stadiums in the US, is that it means the entire thing becomes partially taxpayer subsidized including player salaries. The players often can earn so much in part because the stadiums generate so much (varies depending on the league and TV contracts, etc). Taxpayer funds have directly & persistently assisted, decade after decade, in the sports leagues being built up financially. I think cumulatively it is to such an extent that you could never say there is such a thing as wholly private spending in any of the major US sports leagues (I realize this varies country to country).
I think it really depends on who you ask, so I don’t think you can generalize how people feel about this.
As for myself, I’d love to see space tech thriving in India.
But all of the extremely poor people I encountered during my time in India, I can’t imagine that they would be pushing for this or even think about it beyond their daily struggles.
As for myself, I’d love to see space tech thriving in India.
But all of the extremely poor people I encountered during my time in India, I can’t imagine that they would be pushing for this or even think about it beyond their daily struggles.
> No-one ever says "We spend billions on Football; let's spend it on poor people instead", or "We spend billions on the music and film industries, let's shut those down and instead tax everyone for the average entertainment spend and send the proceeds to developing nations". Or defense for that matter.
People say both quite a lot. Well, in case of the more general "industry" it's more like "let's roll back the spending quite a lot, except defense, shut that one down".
People say both quite a lot. Well, in case of the more general "industry" it's more like "let's roll back the spending quite a lot, except defense, shut that one down".
People say that all the time (we could take all that money from X and invest in Y). It's called a false dichotomy.
It’s a convenient intellectual term for us, but if you ask the guy who is starving then he would likely disagree with you.
Why is it false?
I do think human spaceflight is a bad idea for now, but Chandrayaan-2 is a robotic mission.
Computers are an even better example. Their early usages were incredibly primitive, limited, and astronomically expensive. You had governments dropping very large amounts of money on what were glorified calculators. If you would have even suggested that these 'computing machines' would lead to what we have today, it would have sounded like fantasy. The most remarkable thing is that the transition from effectively no computers to them revolutionizing our entire species happened in less than a single human lifetime.
And I see no reason to expect anything different with space. Developing the technology to sustainably colonize other planets will bring opportunities that we cannot even imagine today. And I think we can all see such things, but it's easy to get mind-locked in the drama of the present while forgetting about the longer path that we are already set well upon. It is interesting to consider that the saying "When a wise man points to the moon, the fool examines the finger." is, itself, many centuries old.
And I see no reason to expect anything different with space. Developing the technology to sustainably colonize other planets will bring opportunities that we cannot even imagine today. And I think we can all see such things, but it's easy to get mind-locked in the drama of the present while forgetting about the longer path that we are already set well upon. It is interesting to consider that the saying "When a wise man points to the moon, the fool examines the finger." is, itself, many centuries old.
I have a lot of reasons to suspect "colonize other planets" or any such things won't happen in less than a lifetime. Unlike computing, physical challenge is daunting, and economic challenge is more so. As saying goes, if we would colonize Mars, why aren't we colonizing Antarctica, which is infinitely easier?
Antarctica is a really interesting topic in its own right. One major reason there is minimal development there is because development is literally illegal. The Antarctic treaty system [1] prohibits any sort of non-scientific research, specifically ban things such as material exploitation, and also sets strict 0-impact laws. For instance it is, again literally, illegal to take a piss on Antarctica during a voyage. It needs to be bottled up and brought back to base where it can be extensively processed before being 'returned' to the sea. Disposable trash that cannot be recycled is packaged up and returned home for disposal processing.
But there's something much more interesting about Antarctica. The intuition is like you said, colonizing it is a million times easier than e.g. Mars. But this is not so simple. Antarctica is a pretty brutal place. It's not that just exposure to the climate entails death but there are also often violent storms. And the perpetual darkness of the Antarctic winter is why the population plummets from thousands to about a thousand during winter. Mars, by contrast, has a low pressure atmosphere, unbreathable air, and high radiation levels. This means you can only go outside with substantial protection which is comparable, though of course more extreme, than Antarctica. On the other hand, it's otherwise a very tame place. The most violent storm on Mars would feel like a slight breeze. This is one of the very few things thing that the book/movie "The Martian" intentionally faked. It's extremely telling that a hard sci-fi book had to resort to fantasy to create a disaster scenario on Mars.
Mars also shares a number of oddly convenient similarities with Earth. It shares a near identical day/night cycle, and even oddly enough has a near identical pattern of seasons due to near identical axial tilt. Because of this it doesn't sense to speak of 'Martian' temperatures since when/where are quite important. Summer near the equator gets right balmy at about 70F, though the lack of any meaningful greenhouse to trap in the heat does mean nights are still very cold. And of course Mars has absolutely abundant mineral resources. The red color itself is from iron oxides - rust. 0.3G will also offer unimaginable opportunities. For the most predictable launching vessels from Mars will be exponentially easier on Earth, and all the resources necessary to establish such industry exist in abundance on the planet. It will also undoubtedly spur on tourism, new sports, and so on. Some exciting potential!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
---
The above is already longer than I thought it'd be, but really it's also necessary to mention something about computing. Try to mentally take yourself back some decades ago. Computers are literally the size of buildings with extremely fragile hardware, have enormous costs associated with them, cost millions of dollars, and need to be operated by large teams of highly skilled professionals. And in exchange for all of this you get again what were glorified calculators - the ENIAC [2] for instance was the first general purpose computer, and it achieved a blistering 35 divisions per second. Imagine somebody said soon you'd have computers sold for tens of dollars, capable of fitting in a pocket, that operate on the billions of operations per second. They'd become so ubiquitous and cheap you'd see them in practically everything. It's easy to take what we've achieved for granted, but we live in a reality that was, not long ago, the domain of fantasy.
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
But there's something much more interesting about Antarctica. The intuition is like you said, colonizing it is a million times easier than e.g. Mars. But this is not so simple. Antarctica is a pretty brutal place. It's not that just exposure to the climate entails death but there are also often violent storms. And the perpetual darkness of the Antarctic winter is why the population plummets from thousands to about a thousand during winter. Mars, by contrast, has a low pressure atmosphere, unbreathable air, and high radiation levels. This means you can only go outside with substantial protection which is comparable, though of course more extreme, than Antarctica. On the other hand, it's otherwise a very tame place. The most violent storm on Mars would feel like a slight breeze. This is one of the very few things thing that the book/movie "The Martian" intentionally faked. It's extremely telling that a hard sci-fi book had to resort to fantasy to create a disaster scenario on Mars.
Mars also shares a number of oddly convenient similarities with Earth. It shares a near identical day/night cycle, and even oddly enough has a near identical pattern of seasons due to near identical axial tilt. Because of this it doesn't sense to speak of 'Martian' temperatures since when/where are quite important. Summer near the equator gets right balmy at about 70F, though the lack of any meaningful greenhouse to trap in the heat does mean nights are still very cold. And of course Mars has absolutely abundant mineral resources. The red color itself is from iron oxides - rust. 0.3G will also offer unimaginable opportunities. For the most predictable launching vessels from Mars will be exponentially easier on Earth, and all the resources necessary to establish such industry exist in abundance on the planet. It will also undoubtedly spur on tourism, new sports, and so on. Some exciting potential!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
---
The above is already longer than I thought it'd be, but really it's also necessary to mention something about computing. Try to mentally take yourself back some decades ago. Computers are literally the size of buildings with extremely fragile hardware, have enormous costs associated with them, cost millions of dollars, and need to be operated by large teams of highly skilled professionals. And in exchange for all of this you get again what were glorified calculators - the ENIAC [2] for instance was the first general purpose computer, and it achieved a blistering 35 divisions per second. Imagine somebody said soon you'd have computers sold for tens of dollars, capable of fitting in a pocket, that operate on the billions of operations per second. They'd become so ubiquitous and cheap you'd see them in practically everything. It's easy to take what we've achieved for granted, but we live in a reality that was, not long ago, the domain of fantasy.
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC
That's an interesting question. Why aren't we? I figure we basically already have technology-wise so there's not any research left to do and we have no reason to actually move there yet.
We (foolishly in my opinion) signed treaties which made Antarctica a research-only continent.
Imagine if we had done the same to North America - the world might have never developed most of today's technology.
Imagine if we had done the same to North America - the world might have never developed most of today's technology.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. It would be pretty cool if Antarctica had been populated and urbanized.
Also, India produces a staggering amount of geniuses who leave the country due to lack of good roles or technical challenges.
Having ISRO or Brahmos around, allows the country to keep some of its smartest in the country, before they are poached by the west.
Having ISRO or Brahmos around, allows the country to keep some of its smartest in the country, before they are poached by the west.
Check out this link. As it suggests, they can work on many things in parallel. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
This reminds me of the excuses for spending billions of dollars hosting the Olympics. "All the infrastructure improvements will help the locals!" Well, yes, but if infrastructure is your goal there are a lot less costly ways to go about it. I'm sure a country that decided to build an underwater amusement park would end up acquiring some technical know-how on engineering, but that doesn't make that a practical goal.
A lot of Olympic infrastructure is wasted since it involves stuff like building stadiums that are then unused after the Olympics.
Investment for an Olympics-type event can be useful if it results in the creation of durable multipurpose infrastructure like transit lines though.
The US Space Race helped us become a leader in satellite launch, which is a productive industry on its own terms now. Weather satellites, GPS, telecoms all benefit from it and provide tangible benefits to the population.
I’m not sure if Indian investment in space is more toward the useless or useful side of the spectrum though.
Investment for an Olympics-type event can be useful if it results in the creation of durable multipurpose infrastructure like transit lines though.
The US Space Race helped us become a leader in satellite launch, which is a productive industry on its own terms now. Weather satellites, GPS, telecoms all benefit from it and provide tangible benefits to the population.
I’m not sure if Indian investment in space is more toward the useless or useful side of the spectrum though.
US Space Race was toward the useless side, given that GPS or comsat do not require human spaceflight. Soviet Union was more sensible.
There's more than GPS. Human spaceflight has produced many valuable non-invasive wearable biomedical devices because sending up a doctor to monitor the astronaut was not an option. NASA research into nutrition has given us better infant formulas. Research into protection of astronauts' eyes has lead to UV-blocking sunglasses. Etc etc.
Not sure, the Soviets also put men in space, did MIR, and they tried to go to the moon and build a space shuttle too, just failed at it.
The thing that I do wonder is when a country like India is just replicating the work already done by the USA, how much of the innovation / potential has already been tapped. (Or now with the USA return to the moon program, is developing Orion and SLS and the gateway really going to do much that the Apollo program didn’t?)
The thing that I do wonder is when a country like India is just replicating the work already done by the USA, how much of the innovation / potential has already been tapped. (Or now with the USA return to the moon program, is developing Orion and SLS and the gateway really going to do much that the Apollo program didn’t?)
Life is not linear. You have a proportion of your budget to spend on moonshots (literally). Developed countries can spend more while less developed countries spend a lesser proportion on such moonshots. It’s up to the respective country to decide where they’d like to spend their proportion on. In this case, India decides this mission.
An underwater amusement park would be a nice goal to develop underwater construction technology actually. I could see that being important if the surface of the Earth becomes inhospitable and it perhaps could be popular enough as an attraction to be able to get early returns in the investment.
There already is an underwater hotel in the Maldives...
Wouldn't special lines of credit open up for a country/city willing to setup olympics ?
Tldr: working on any difficult problem causes you to learn things. That knowledge can be used for much more than that original difficult problem.
Space enthusiasts are always trying to sell their fetish with this line, but the fact is that technology development is not some generic facility; if you develop technology devoted to getting things up into orbit, it will basically give you the expertise to do that. It doesn't, say, develop your semiconductor design, biochemistry, medicine, agriculture, or whatever else your country might need. It basically helps you build weapons, the main reason people get so excited about rocketry. This is the last thing India needs.
if you develop technology devoted to getting things up into orbit, it will basically give you the expertise to do that.
The key word being devoted of course. If you fail to acknowledge any benefits from the space program other than getting things into orbit, then yes it'll be hard to see any value in space exploration beyond doing it for its own sake, which you may or may not see any value in since you yourself label it a fetish.
However the larger benefits of technology yielded by the space program are undeniable, including in some of the same fields you mentioned. From wikipedia
>NASA reports that 444,000 lives have been saved, 14,000 jobs have been created, 5 billion dollars in revenue has been generated, and there has been 6.2 billion dollars in cost reduction due to spin-off programs from NASA research in collaboration with various companies. Of the many beneficial NASA spinoff technologies there has been advancements in the fields of health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, energy and environment, information technology, and industrial productivity. Multiple products and innovations used in the daily life are results of space generated research. Solar panels, water-purification systems, dietary formulas and supplements, space suit materials in clothing, and global search and rescue systems are but a few examples of the beneficiary spinoffs that have been produced.
You may hand wave and say "oh but that could have been all discovered without going to space." Perhaps, but your thesis seems to be space exploration is a fetish with no benefits beyond making space exploration more efficient, which is patently untrue.
The key word being devoted of course. If you fail to acknowledge any benefits from the space program other than getting things into orbit, then yes it'll be hard to see any value in space exploration beyond doing it for its own sake, which you may or may not see any value in since you yourself label it a fetish.
However the larger benefits of technology yielded by the space program are undeniable, including in some of the same fields you mentioned. From wikipedia
>NASA reports that 444,000 lives have been saved, 14,000 jobs have been created, 5 billion dollars in revenue has been generated, and there has been 6.2 billion dollars in cost reduction due to spin-off programs from NASA research in collaboration with various companies. Of the many beneficial NASA spinoff technologies there has been advancements in the fields of health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, energy and environment, information technology, and industrial productivity. Multiple products and innovations used in the daily life are results of space generated research. Solar panels, water-purification systems, dietary formulas and supplements, space suit materials in clothing, and global search and rescue systems are but a few examples of the beneficiary spinoffs that have been produced.
You may hand wave and say "oh but that could have been all discovered without going to space." Perhaps, but your thesis seems to be space exploration is a fetish with no benefits beyond making space exploration more efficient, which is patently untrue.
It's not a hand wave - my argument is that those things could all be better developed, and indeed have been, by programs that are directly focused on that kind of technology development. Ancillary technologies are nice, but why settle for ancillary development that MIGHT yield things that are useful, instead of directly focusing your technology development on those useful things in the first place?
Because you get the benefits of space exploration and the secondary benefits as well. For those that support space exploration that's enough. For those that view space exploration as a fetishistic waste of money I don't know what could possibly convince them otherwise. It'd be interesting to know.
NASA's yearly budget is over $20 billion
I wish this comment was less baited. If your argument is true and strong, then you don’t need to dismiss it as fan behavior or call it a fetish.
Your argument is also demonstrably weak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
Your argument is also demonstrably weak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
Yeah, where would we be without LASIK? I'll also note that that article notably elides things like ICBMs and the other myriad military applications, since it is clearly intended as a puff piece to make us view space technologies as benevolent and positive.
As for my tone, perhaps you are right that I don't need to employ ridicule; but I wish to, because I feel contempt for this position so strongly I want to make it known. Space fetishism is a diversion that exists to bilk engineers into careers and positions that are in aid of the military.
As for my tone, perhaps you are right that I don't need to employ ridicule; but I wish to, because I feel contempt for this position so strongly I want to make it known. Space fetishism is a diversion that exists to bilk engineers into careers and positions that are in aid of the military.
Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? That includes name-calling like "fetish", which the site guidelines also ask you specifically to avoid.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: alas, your comment history indicates that you've been using this site primarily for ideological battle rather than curiosity. We ban accounts that do that regardless of what they're battling for, because these two things aren't compatible, the one drowns out the other, and HN is for curiosity. If you'd please review the guidelines and use the site as intended, we'd be grateful.
You might also find these links helpful for getting the original spirit of the site:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: alas, your comment history indicates that you've been using this site primarily for ideological battle rather than curiosity. We ban accounts that do that regardless of what they're battling for, because these two things aren't compatible, the one drowns out the other, and HN is for curiosity. If you'd please review the guidelines and use the site as intended, we'd be grateful.
You might also find these links helpful for getting the original spirit of the site:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html
Actually, would you please ban me? I'm not sure i agree with you about ideology vs. curiosity, I'd say rather that ideology is one of the primary things I am curious about and something I appreciate about HN is that there are smart people here willing to discuss it.
But I do think my comments suffer from a meanness I'd like to avoid, and that my use of this site is something like a nicotine habit; I'd appreciate the nudge towards quitting.
But I do think my comments suffer from a meanness I'd like to avoid, and that my use of this site is something like a nicotine habit; I'd appreciate the nudge towards quitting.
Ahhh, you're commenting on your contempt for the military, I see that now. I didn't get that at first, from your apparent comment about economics. ("the fact is that technology development is not some generic facility; if you develop technology devoted to getting things up into orbit, it will basically give you the expertise to do that. It doesn't, say, develop your semiconductor design, biochemistry, medicine, agriculture, or whatever else your country might need.")
Both the space programs and the military have well documented positive direct and indirect effects on private business, and both have many spinoff technologies that do benefit society. That is in addition to some well documented negative impacts, not to mention wars and death. But you didn't really want to talk about the economics, right?
If you just don't want to build weapons and don't think we should as a society, that's a reasonable view to hold, I can certainly find some ground to agree with you. Personally, I'll just suggest choosing clarity and not ridicule might help get that point across and convince more people. The sarcasm and ridicule tend to alienate, especially if you're talking directly to people who might enjoy space topics and would otherwise agree with you that weapon building is ugly business. You're choosing to ridicule innocent bystanders, rather than the people making weapons.
> Space fetishism is a diversion that exists to bilk engineers into careers and positions that are in aid of the military.
That makes it sound like a conspiracy theory, as if nobody would be interested in space were it not for the sneaky military. Isaac Newton had a space fetish and died before NASA or the US military industrial complex began. You didn't get tricked into a NASA career, right? I know a few engineers that have worked in space & military applications, and all the ones I know participated knowingly.
Both the space programs and the military have well documented positive direct and indirect effects on private business, and both have many spinoff technologies that do benefit society. That is in addition to some well documented negative impacts, not to mention wars and death. But you didn't really want to talk about the economics, right?
If you just don't want to build weapons and don't think we should as a society, that's a reasonable view to hold, I can certainly find some ground to agree with you. Personally, I'll just suggest choosing clarity and not ridicule might help get that point across and convince more people. The sarcasm and ridicule tend to alienate, especially if you're talking directly to people who might enjoy space topics and would otherwise agree with you that weapon building is ugly business. You're choosing to ridicule innocent bystanders, rather than the people making weapons.
> Space fetishism is a diversion that exists to bilk engineers into careers and positions that are in aid of the military.
That makes it sound like a conspiracy theory, as if nobody would be interested in space were it not for the sneaky military. Isaac Newton had a space fetish and died before NASA or the US military industrial complex began. You didn't get tricked into a NASA career, right? I know a few engineers that have worked in space & military applications, and all the ones I know participated knowingly.
Well, at least in the case of India, most of what you pointed out has been directly benefitted by the space industry. India has its first major semiconductor foundry operated under the Department of Space. And the space agency spends a significant part of its on-ground budget on developing outreach programs for farmers to teach them how to use meteorological and soil data to get a better, more reliable harvest. Also, India is one of the few countries to have a civilian space agency led solely by engineers. The only time it rubs shoulders with the military is when it sources spacecraft and launch vehicle parts from the national defence supplier or when it shares data with the military in order to satisfy the government's political mandate.
FWIW, the very first application & customer for semiconductors was guided missiles. Literally what got the industry started.
Most industries get their start in the military because that is where the money always is; however, semiconductors have definitely moved on to other applications, whereas rocketry remains mostly about making missiles.
Germany did not do big government engineering projects. They had a certain distaste for that after the war...
Instead they deregulated and let private enterprise rebuild their economy.
Instead they deregulated and let private enterprise rebuild their economy.
Kinda annoyed that my correct description of West German history is downvoted to -2 points by jerks who have nothing to say...
I like the first sentence, but what's "like that" doing in there?
I respect your perspective, but based on your answer I’m assuming you are not living in poverty?
The poor aren't paying taxes in India. They are exempted from paying any tax. Taxation in India only begins if you are in the lower middle class. And even then, you only start by paying 5% Income Tax. If you take in deductions you can also be tax free for upto 7.5 lakhs (almost 10,000 USD). India's Per Capita Income is 7000 USD (4.8 lakhs).
On the other hand, India has already lifted 271 million people out of poverty in 10 years [1]. Can you name a single country that has achieved this feat in such a short span of time?
[1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
On the other hand, India has already lifted 271 million people out of poverty in 10 years [1]. Can you name a single country that has achieved this feat in such a short span of time?
[1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
Neither are you.
I think the poster's point was that NONE of us here are poor, hence this is a very different discussion than if we involved that poor part of the population. Not only is the poor fraction of the population huge, they would also have a very different take on whether the space program is worth it.
The poor are not paying taxes. Their opinions don't mean jack shit.
Except the country already acquired all that via globalisation. This isn't 1952. There are few walls up on many technologies. India has acquired most of its know-how by undercutting developed nations and getting them to teach them how to do the work.
Is it?
Agriculture is the country’s major occupation, yet it imports rice polishing machines from switzerland.
Indian market is one of the fastest growing smartphone market. Yet the biggest players are Chinese, Korean or American.
Railways has been the primary source of connection across the country and within cities. Yet metro trains are made by Japan and european companies.
In the cities IT services are the main source of economy, yet India never shipped its own microprocessor until very recently.
I can go on, but you get the point. Having a vague idea of how to do something vs shipping a world class product are two different things. What’s happening with the moon mission is the latter, though at a very beginning stage.
Indian market is one of the fastest growing smartphone market. Yet the biggest players are Chinese, Korean or American.
Railways has been the primary source of connection across the country and within cities. Yet metro trains are made by Japan and european companies.
In the cities IT services are the main source of economy, yet India never shipped its own microprocessor until very recently.
I can go on, but you get the point. Having a vague idea of how to do something vs shipping a world class product are two different things. What’s happening with the moon mission is the latter, though at a very beginning stage.
The UK used to know build how to most those things, indeed invented them; they now buy them from abroad. Globalisation and the economics thereof dictate that.
India to some degree skipped a step on the way. Much like central and rural African countries skipping broadband and going straight to mobile internet.
India to some degree skipped a step on the way. Much like central and rural African countries skipping broadband and going straight to mobile internet.
Yes. UK’s biggest company is not a train engine company. UK learned that it could generate far more revenue by selling financial services with its rich legacy along that line, than export train engines that it invented.
India took a similar path in 90s, selling IT services. But it isn’t simply enough given the size and the population of the country. The only sustainable way forward is to become strong exporters of good products along with services.
India took a similar path in 90s, selling IT services. But it isn’t simply enough given the size and the population of the country. The only sustainable way forward is to become strong exporters of good products along with services.
Some knowledge only can be learned by doing. Also, space technology is, due to its close tie to missile technology, one of those few modern technologies with walls up.
What are you talking about? India has Nuclear weapons and self made 12k km range ICBMs already
India didn't acquire launch technology "via globalisation". In fact, when India attempted technology transfer from Russia, US objected citing Missile Technology Control Regime, and India had to develop their own.
[deleted]
Yea. They basically went back to first principles on relativity I hear. They had nothing to go on. No well understood science in the public domain at all.
And the objection was around the seeker technology more specifically
And the objection was around the seeker technology more specifically
If you want to keep going back in time why not go all the way back to Science that was founded in India and was taken and adopted by the West? How about we go all the way back to the numeral system (which originated from the Brahmi numerals) without which there would be no foundation for any future Scientific discoveries? It is ridiculous to keep going back in time to justify something that is happening today. Every race has contributed to Science in its own way. To ridicule the efforts of the present day Scientists by continuously invoking the past is absolutely uncalled for. No matter how much you try to hide scientific discoveries it will eventually find its way out of your grasp. That is how it has been since time immemorial and will never change just because you wish so.
Please don't do nationalistic flamewar on HN, regardless of how provocative some other comments are. Everyone needs to make an effort here to prevent discussion from degrading into battle.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
How about you calm down and pay attention to the discussion. Total lunatic. I was stating my point around the closed science of the cold war era. India was doing nothing around that time. It then benefited, like everyone else in the world when the huge post war advances were done in public in peer reviewed science. When you do something ow, it is not from scratch. Its not an insult as you seem to think it is.
Your behaviour is scandalous and anathema to any reasonable discussion. You simply invent your own argument to have with yourself. I'm finished here.
Your behaviour is scandalous and anathema to any reasonable discussion. You simply invent your own argument to have with yourself. I'm finished here.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review the site guidelines and don't post like this to HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: we've had to warn you about this more than once before. I don't want to ban you, so would you please fix this?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: we've had to warn you about this more than once before. I don't want to ban you, so would you please fix this?
"Walls up"
"Self made"
Exactly.
"Self made"
Exactly.
A lot of developed nations are piggybacking on the educated, talented people from India.
It's only fair India got its fair share back.
More importantly, corruption and backstabbing has so far ruined such talent, spilling into developed nations; so if there is a somewhat level playing field being established through ISRO and via Indian startups for Indians, then that's a great start.
More importantly, corruption and backstabbing has so far ruined such talent, spilling into developed nations; so if there is a somewhat level playing field being established through ISRO and via Indian startups for Indians, then that's a great start.
USA has developed most of its business income/value by exploiting purchasing power capita of nations like India and China. It works both ways.
Lol, you must be joking, in fact it's the opposite. It's majority of Indians who are doing cutting edge research and innovating just look at what's going on any day in Silicon Valley or any top Universities. Now they are starting to do the same in their country while being creative with lost cost solutions.
And the acquisition of those skill sets come from the west working with them. Science isn't a closed shop anymore.
You’re saying it’s Indians that are doing the majority (>%50) of cutting edge research? That’s just not true, even in the slightest.
http://www.forbesindia.com/article/innovation-special/18-ind...
EDIT: Since Hacker News won't allow me to post a reply. I am editing this post here.
You misunderstood what he said. He said that "majority of Indians" are doing cutting-edge research in foreign Universities. Not "majority of cutting-edge research" are being done by Indians. Both have different meanings. Most Indians who travel to foreign countries get higher education grants/fellowships to work on cutting-edge research. Very few Indians actually travel for undergraduate courses. India has prestigious universities like IITs/NITs which are equal to and in some cases better than Western counterparts. The reason why Indians travel to Western countries for research is because of lack of research grants to carry out Scientific experiments that might run into many millions/billions of dollars. In other words, this is brain drain at its finest.
EDIT: Since Hacker News won't allow me to post a reply. I am editing this post here.
You misunderstood what he said. He said that "majority of Indians" are doing cutting-edge research in foreign Universities. Not "majority of cutting-edge research" are being done by Indians. Both have different meanings. Most Indians who travel to foreign countries get higher education grants/fellowships to work on cutting-edge research. Very few Indians actually travel for undergraduate courses. India has prestigious universities like IITs/NITs which are equal to and in some cases better than Western counterparts. The reason why Indians travel to Western countries for research is because of lack of research grants to carry out Scientific experiments that might run into many millions/billions of dollars. In other words, this is brain drain at its finest.
>Folks who suggest dealing with poverty before launching machines to space: the economy doesn't work like that, FYI. If a country acquires deep technical know-how on engineering, it means the country can use it to spin out new industries and export that utility. That is how a country makes money.
Technology doesn't work like that, either. A country can "acquire deep technical know-how on engineering" by doing earth-bound R&D and working on its infrastructure problems...
Not to mention that they're not learning much new -- they just repeat what other countries have done since decades, most of which their engineers already know (they already send satellites and make military rockets and such).
Let's not pretend space vs local infrastructure is not an opportunity cost.
Technology doesn't work like that, either. A country can "acquire deep technical know-how on engineering" by doing earth-bound R&D and working on its infrastructure problems...
Not to mention that they're not learning much new -- they just repeat what other countries have done since decades, most of which their engineers already know (they already send satellites and make military rockets and such).
Let's not pretend space vs local infrastructure is not an opportunity cost.
You must see whether the money used in something is from the te sector or if it was stolen from the people through taxation. If it is the former, it's none of your business and indeed it doesn't make anyone poorer. If it is the later, it's of everyone's business, unfair, and bad. I'm not into Indian space endeavours but probably the money comes from poor taxpayers who would be way better off if they weren't plundered in the first place.
> I'm not into Indian space endeavours but probably the money comes from poor taxpayers who would be way better off if they weren't plundered in the first place.
If you don't know then it's best not to talk because it only helps perpetuate the already negative stereotype that most have. The poor aren't even taxed in India. Indians are only taxed after they have a minimum salary of 7.5 lakhs per annum (accounting for all the deductions). Which is around 11,000 USD. And no this amount isn't low by Indian standards (the per-capita income is 7,060 USD). The cost of living in India is extremely low and inflation is well controlled (< 3%) so this amount is actually pretty decent to live in a Tier-1 city with a nice 2-bedroom apartment on rent. You can call this the lower middle class. And even they pay lesser tax until they hit the 20 lakhs per annum (30,000 USD) bracket (5%-20% based on where you fall in the slab rates).
And almost 70% of the rural households practice Agriculture in India. All these people are exempted from paying both Income Tax and GST. And if they have a bad season sometimes their loans are also waived.
India is a 3 trillion $ economy. India needs to find new ways to get to a 10 trillion $ economy if it wants to improve standards of living for all Indians and lift the remaining 300 million people out of poverty (it has already lifted 271 million people out of poverty in 10 years [1]. Can you name a single country that has achieved this feat in such a short span of time?). One of the areas where India can earn big is Space. ISRO is already a profitable enterprise for the Government. There is no reason why anyone will want it to be shutdown for anything. Especially when it is making huge profits.
[1]: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
If you don't know then it's best not to talk because it only helps perpetuate the already negative stereotype that most have. The poor aren't even taxed in India. Indians are only taxed after they have a minimum salary of 7.5 lakhs per annum (accounting for all the deductions). Which is around 11,000 USD. And no this amount isn't low by Indian standards (the per-capita income is 7,060 USD). The cost of living in India is extremely low and inflation is well controlled (< 3%) so this amount is actually pretty decent to live in a Tier-1 city with a nice 2-bedroom apartment on rent. You can call this the lower middle class. And even they pay lesser tax until they hit the 20 lakhs per annum (30,000 USD) bracket (5%-20% based on where you fall in the slab rates).
And almost 70% of the rural households practice Agriculture in India. All these people are exempted from paying both Income Tax and GST. And if they have a bad season sometimes their loans are also waived.
India is a 3 trillion $ economy. India needs to find new ways to get to a 10 trillion $ economy if it wants to improve standards of living for all Indians and lift the remaining 300 million people out of poverty (it has already lifted 271 million people out of poverty in 10 years [1]. Can you name a single country that has achieved this feat in such a short span of time?). One of the areas where India can earn big is Space. ISRO is already a profitable enterprise for the Government. There is no reason why anyone will want it to be shutdown for anything. Especially when it is making huge profits.
[1]: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
A correction for you. 7060$ is purchasing power parity number, while the 11000$ is nominal.
Useful reddit page with links to all the livestreams (at least 4), timeline of updates, point form mission details
https://old.reddit.com/r/ISRO/comments/ccbpvm/gslv_mk_iii_m1...
https://old.reddit.com/r/ISRO/comments/ccbpvm/gslv_mk_iii_m1...
I was about to link this as well, glad you beat me to it. At the time of this comment launch is about (edit) 90 min hours away, they have finished liquid oxygen fueling, and loading hydrogen.
Looks like it was called off 4hrs ago due to a technical problem.
True, I haven't heard yet when it will be rescheduled. I heard the remaining launch windows in July are extremely small, so it may be some time before another attempt.
To the naysayers, I only have one thing to say.
If in future (say 20 years down the line), a research agency needs to send their rover to the moon and they have two options: Pay $1bn to NASA, or $200mn to ISRO, who would you think they'd choose?
Private companies have already started using ISRO for launching mini satellites, and it may not be long before it becomes a cashflow positive company in the global market.
If in future (say 20 years down the line), a research agency needs to send their rover to the moon and they have two options: Pay $1bn to NASA, or $200mn to ISRO, who would you think they'd choose?
Private companies have already started using ISRO for launching mini satellites, and it may not be long before it becomes a cashflow positive company in the global market.
Plus why look at research agencies. India needs to launch it's own communication, and weather monitoring satellites. It's much cheaper to develop and use your own capabilities.
What’s the point of posting about Indian space program here if it’s going to devolve in to arguments how India is poor. What is new that is being said here that hasn’t been said before. So depressing.
Just to add numbers ISRO’s budget is 0.5% of Indian GDP, given that more money is probably wasted because of corruption and stupid policies I think this is not the worse way to spend money.
Just to add numbers ISRO’s budget is 0.5% of Indian GDP, given that more money is probably wasted because of corruption and stupid policies I think this is not the worse way to spend money.
Awesome. The more the merrier.
India will become an economically powerful nation just like China is today. Just a matter of time.
India will become an economically powerful nation just like China is today. Just a matter of time.
> Just a matter of time
No, it’s not. The middle income trap is treacherous. I am optimistic for India. But there will be struggles and sacrifices; ascendency is far from inevitable.
No, it’s not. The middle income trap is treacherous. I am optimistic for India. But there will be struggles and sacrifices; ascendency is far from inevitable.
Even if they get stuck at middle income for awhile, that's still like $10k nominal GDP per capita which would put them right around where China is today.
> Even if they get stuck at middle income for awhile
That isn’t the downside scenario. Countries that fail to ascend amidst population growth have a habit of collapsing and regressing, economically and politically. India has been doing a terrific job of traversing this terrain, a fact I largely ascribe to its democratic institutions.
But continued progress is far from a given. Ironically, one of the greatest risk factors is complacency from believing growth is inevitable. (This seems to be happening in China.)
That isn’t the downside scenario. Countries that fail to ascend amidst population growth have a habit of collapsing and regressing, economically and politically. India has been doing a terrific job of traversing this terrain, a fact I largely ascribe to its democratic institutions.
But continued progress is far from a given. Ironically, one of the greatest risk factors is complacency from believing growth is inevitable. (This seems to be happening in China.)
Not certain, but it is the most likely possibility. India doesn’t have an oil-dominated economy, so they aren’t in danger of the “resource curse.” Continued catch-up growth seems the most likely possibility. And as others have said, even a “middle income” outcome would make India an incredibly powerful nation due to the size of their population alone.
EDIT: and there’s empirical support for my supposition that not being dependent on primary commodities (ie not having the “resource curse”) improves the odds of escaping the middle income trap: https://ideas.repec.org/p/jet/dpaper/dpaper482.html
“The results of our analyses suggest that the middle-income trap is a form of Dutch disease or a 'resource curse' in the middle-income stage.”
EDIT: and there’s empirical support for my supposition that not being dependent on primary commodities (ie not having the “resource curse”) improves the odds of escaping the middle income trap: https://ideas.repec.org/p/jet/dpaper/dpaper482.html
“The results of our analyses suggest that the middle-income trap is a form of Dutch disease or a 'resource curse' in the middle-income stage.”
> Continued catch-up growth seems the most likely possibility
Statistically speaking, this is unlikely. Not having concentrated natural resources helps. But the base odds around development economics are precarious.
The most likely outcome is populist collapse, mass emigration and developmental reversal. Only vigilance can guard against that. If India’s populace starts believing growth or stable stagnation are the most likely outcomes, that itself almost assured a negative outcome. (The latter claim based on weaker statistics than the former around the base odds of development.)
Statistically speaking, this is unlikely. Not having concentrated natural resources helps. But the base odds around development economics are precarious.
The most likely outcome is populist collapse, mass emigration and developmental reversal. Only vigilance can guard against that. If India’s populace starts believing growth or stable stagnation are the most likely outcomes, that itself almost assured a negative outcome. (The latter claim based on weaker statistics than the former around the base odds of development.)
This is incorrect. Most likely, India will continue to grow. Most countries not in the resource curse (and even many with it) have continued to grow.
> Most countries not in the resource curse (and even many with it) have continued to grow.
Britain has seen zero net economic growth since 2006 (that's before any inflation adjustment). That's true of most of developed Europe. France's GDP is not much higher than it was in 2007, without an inflation adjustment (in real terms they've seen at least 20% contraction, plausibly worse given the currency debasement that has gone on since then).
Finland and Denmark, two of the nicest, most highly educated countries in world history, have seen zero net economic expansion since 2008. Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands also fall into that box (the Netherlands economy is smaller in nominal terms than it was in 2008; in real terms it's at least 20-25% smaller).
Germany, the engine of Europe, has seen somewhere between very little and zero real net economic expansion since 2008 ($3.75t economy in 2008, $4t economy in 2018).
Japan has seen zero net economic growth since 1994, a quarter century. Japan is a highly advanced, low crime, high education, high standard of living, high skill nation.
Indonesia was a boom economy and is generally consider a high growth potential economy. Yet their economy is not much larger today than it was in 2011 (~$900b in 2011, $1t today). With even a small inflation adjustment it has seen close to zero net growth.
Russia has seen zero net economic growth for a decade. The same is true for Belarus.
Many other middle income countries in Europe, like Czech or Hungary, have seen close to zero net economic growth for a decade.
The Greek economy has been reset back to where it was around 2003.
Ukraine has seen zero net economic growth since ~1989 approximately.
Egypt's economy is approximately where it was in 2011.
Nigeria's economy hasn't net expanded since 2011 ($411b in 2011, $397b in 2018; and it has considerably contracted since 2014; they partially fall under resource curse though).
Brazil has seen zero net economic growth since 2009-2010.
Mexico has seen almost zero net economic growth since 2007 (all population expansion, zero per capita growth); on an inflation adjusted basis, it is zero or negative.
Turkey has seen zero net economic growth since 2007 ($764b economy in 2007; $766b in 2018).
South Africa has seen zero net economic growth since 2010.
Growth is anything but a given.
Britain has seen zero net economic growth since 2006 (that's before any inflation adjustment). That's true of most of developed Europe. France's GDP is not much higher than it was in 2007, without an inflation adjustment (in real terms they've seen at least 20% contraction, plausibly worse given the currency debasement that has gone on since then).
Finland and Denmark, two of the nicest, most highly educated countries in world history, have seen zero net economic expansion since 2008. Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands also fall into that box (the Netherlands economy is smaller in nominal terms than it was in 2008; in real terms it's at least 20-25% smaller).
Germany, the engine of Europe, has seen somewhere between very little and zero real net economic expansion since 2008 ($3.75t economy in 2008, $4t economy in 2018).
Japan has seen zero net economic growth since 1994, a quarter century. Japan is a highly advanced, low crime, high education, high standard of living, high skill nation.
Indonesia was a boom economy and is generally consider a high growth potential economy. Yet their economy is not much larger today than it was in 2011 (~$900b in 2011, $1t today). With even a small inflation adjustment it has seen close to zero net growth.
Russia has seen zero net economic growth for a decade. The same is true for Belarus.
Many other middle income countries in Europe, like Czech or Hungary, have seen close to zero net economic growth for a decade.
The Greek economy has been reset back to where it was around 2003.
Ukraine has seen zero net economic growth since ~1989 approximately.
Egypt's economy is approximately where it was in 2011.
Nigeria's economy hasn't net expanded since 2011 ($411b in 2011, $397b in 2018; and it has considerably contracted since 2014; they partially fall under resource curse though).
Brazil has seen zero net economic growth since 2009-2010.
Mexico has seen almost zero net economic growth since 2007 (all population expansion, zero per capita growth); on an inflation adjusted basis, it is zero or negative.
Turkey has seen zero net economic growth since 2007 ($764b economy in 2007; $766b in 2018).
South Africa has seen zero net economic growth since 2010.
Growth is anything but a given.
> Britain has seen zero net economic growth since 2006 (that's before any inflation adjustment).
Firstly, net GDP, or net economic growth isn’t a thing. (Value added, and GDP is already a net measure).
Real (inflation adjusted) UK GDP has definitely increased since 2006. Real GDP per capita has also increased slightly.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/times...
France’s GDP contracted by 20%? Not according to the figures I’m looking at.
You’re just making stuff up.
Firstly, net GDP, or net economic growth isn’t a thing. (Value added, and GDP is already a net measure).
Real (inflation adjusted) UK GDP has definitely increased since 2006. Real GDP per capita has also increased slightly.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/times...
France’s GDP contracted by 20%? Not according to the figures I’m looking at.
You’re just making stuff up.
Most of those are already developed countries and about half the rest are “resource curse” (Russia, Nigeria,etc) it had significant war (Egypt, Ukraine, etc). The reason why India is likely to grow a lot is they’re still doing catch-up growth, they’re not primary resource export driven, and they’re industrializing.
Additionally, it seems to me that something important happened to the global economy right after 2007, so that’s a somewhat cherry-picked date.
Additionally, it seems to me that something important happened to the global economy right after 2007, so that’s a somewhat cherry-picked date.
> The reason why India is likely to grow a lot is they’re still doing catch-up growth
With all due respect, as someone who has done work in developmental economics and macroeconomic finance, this is wrong. I’d encourage you to consider the literature. One never loses from a realistic view of the landscape.
With all due respect, as someone who has done work in developmental economics and macroeconomic finance, this is wrong. I’d encourage you to consider the literature. One never loses from a realistic view of the landscape.
Then surely you can point something out. Because I will bet you that India will increase real per capita income by a factor of 5 by the end of this century.
Could you elaborate on this middle income trap?
Have other nations fallen victim to this trap, in the recent past - say 30-50 years or so?
I fully agree that ascendancy or primacy is far from inevitable and am generally far less optimistic than you , in these things.
But could you shed light on what sorts of factors prevented a nation similar in its growth spurt from continued growth?
What kneecapped them?
Have other nations fallen victim to this trap, in the recent past - say 30-50 years or so?
I fully agree that ascendancy or primacy is far from inevitable and am generally far less optimistic than you , in these things.
But could you shed light on what sorts of factors prevented a nation similar in its growth spurt from continued growth?
What kneecapped them?
Venezuela? Argentina? I think there are plenty of examples.
The prominent examples are:
Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Czech, Hungary, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile
There are several other nations in Europe and Latin America, that have been stuck in the middle income trap for some time (such as Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Panama, Serbia, Croatia and Bulgaria).
Albania and Macedonia have been stuck in it, with little further progress, since the early to mid 2000s.
Africa has a few others besides South Africa, such as Gabon (trapped since the mid 1970s), Botswana (trapped since 1990) and Algeria (since the early 1980s).
Lebanon has been stuck for 20 years. Jordan has been stuck since the early 1980s.
Portugal may just be outside of it or at the ceiling, at $23k per capita; however in inflation adjusted terms they've seen close to zero per capita growth since 1992. Greece is an odd case, hard to say whether they ever escaped the middle income trap, or whether the good years before the crash were entirely fake. On an inflation adjusted basis Greece has also seen close to zero per capita growth since 1992.
Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Czech, Hungary, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile
There are several other nations in Europe and Latin America, that have been stuck in the middle income trap for some time (such as Uruguay, Paraguay, Peru, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Panama, Serbia, Croatia and Bulgaria).
Albania and Macedonia have been stuck in it, with little further progress, since the early to mid 2000s.
Africa has a few others besides South Africa, such as Gabon (trapped since the mid 1970s), Botswana (trapped since 1990) and Algeria (since the early 1980s).
Lebanon has been stuck for 20 years. Jordan has been stuck since the early 1980s.
Portugal may just be outside of it or at the ceiling, at $23k per capita; however in inflation adjusted terms they've seen close to zero per capita growth since 1992. Greece is an odd case, hard to say whether they ever escaped the middle income trap, or whether the good years before the crash were entirely fake. On an inflation adjusted basis Greece has also seen close to zero per capita growth since 1992.
India is in a lower middle income group, its neighbours except pakistan are moving or in midle to upper-middle income groups already. Srilanka, China and bangladesh are middle, higher middle and soon to be middle income group countries respectively. India is far behind on many indicators and right wing governments world over dont have a great track record of improving the economy. India seems likely to get stuck in middle income trap like Brazil but with much low oil resource and large uneducated skill less population which is destined to be a liability in the next decades to come unless India is able to magically transform its low skill population into an equivalent chinese work force. But that is unlikely due to education disparity in the population, and a religious system where a large population does not have access to education. So all in all India is destined to be a basket case of untapped potential.
The sooner the better. We need a democratic counterpoint to China's totalitarianism.
India may have some kind of democracy but it's far that enjoyed in a western European nation. The open support by some BJP politicians for the lynch mobs and killers of Muslims and Dalits is unconscionable.
40% of BJP members of parliment have criminal records/charges against them. Including murder and rape. I'm Indian but I've lost faith in Indian politicians years ago. Only way I see a reform coming about is if more of the youth view politics as a viable/worthy career path. Right now, the lunatic amount of emphasis on Engineering/Science paths to highschool kids is draining all talent.
Source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabh...
Source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabh...
> the lunatic amount of emphasis on Engineering/Science paths to highschool kids is draining all talent.
What does this even mean? Politicians with criminal cases against them(not convicted) in India is as old as 1947. It's very easy to charge someone and shift the burden to the charged person that they prove themselves innocent.
That doesn't mean there aren't bad people, it just takes a lot of time before this changes. Singling out a single party on a forum where little people have cultural context just shows the bias.
What does this even mean? Politicians with criminal cases against them(not convicted) in India is as old as 1947. It's very easy to charge someone and shift the burden to the charged person that they prove themselves innocent.
That doesn't mean there aren't bad people, it just takes a lot of time before this changes. Singling out a single party on a forum where little people have cultural context just shows the bias.
> What does this even mean? Politicians with criminal cases against them(not convicted) in India is as old as 1947. It's very easy to charge someone and shift the burden to the charged person that they prove themselves innocent.
What I mean to say is this crime in politics will continue to exist unless there is more diversity in education paths in India. As a highschooler in your average tier 2 Indian city, The only options (simply based on educational quality, socio-economic pressure, and job opportunities) were a) engineering b) medicine c) law/accounting. I barely knew anyone from my high school that wanted to pursue public office (even later in life, if not immediately).
> That doesn't mean there aren't bad people, it just takes a lot of time before this changes. Singling out a single party on a forum where little people have cultural context just shows the bias.
That's a load of BS. If you managed to open the source I linked it clearly states 39% of Congress leaders have cases against them too. In the second line. I mentioned BJP because of the parent comment I was responding to. Your attempt at framing my comment as some sort of partisan propaganda is mindboggling.
What I mean to say is this crime in politics will continue to exist unless there is more diversity in education paths in India. As a highschooler in your average tier 2 Indian city, The only options (simply based on educational quality, socio-economic pressure, and job opportunities) were a) engineering b) medicine c) law/accounting. I barely knew anyone from my high school that wanted to pursue public office (even later in life, if not immediately).
> That doesn't mean there aren't bad people, it just takes a lot of time before this changes. Singling out a single party on a forum where little people have cultural context just shows the bias.
That's a load of BS. If you managed to open the source I linked it clearly states 39% of Congress leaders have cases against them too. In the second line. I mentioned BJP because of the parent comment I was responding to. Your attempt at framing my comment as some sort of partisan propaganda is mindboggling.
I don’t know anything about Indian politics. This feels like a deflection but I’d like to hear more.
You say many haven’t been convicted formally. Reading between the lines, how many of those cases are likely to have been guilty of the crime, regardless of the workings of the court?
You say many haven’t been convicted formally. Reading between the lines, how many of those cases are likely to have been guilty of the crime, regardless of the workings of the court?
[deleted]
I admire your optimism, but when a country exports it best and brightest talent to build other nations what hope does it ever have.
Mediocrity at best?
Mediocrity at best?
A good argument for having a space exploration program, then.
Can we have one Indian space related thread without the discussion of poverty? From neither Indians nor others?
Lately, there will be one random idiot saying something about hygiene. But then every single comment that follows will be about, how no one has the right to say that.
How about you guys don't react to that crap for once?
Lately, there will be one random idiot saying something about hygiene. But then every single comment that follows will be about, how no one has the right to say that.
How about you guys don't react to that crap for once?
It just got called off. See here: https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/is...
According to the article, Israel used a similar technique for landing but failed. Wonder if India will be successful!
Got to laugh at the ones saying deal with poverty rather than goto the moon. You don't seem to moan when countries like India spend money buying our military hardware do you?
Now ISRO has its official YouTube channel.
Watch Live: Launch of Chandrayaan 2 by GSLV MkIII-M1 Vehicle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USpCu-Z1usk
Watch Live: Launch of Chandrayaan 2 by GSLV MkIII-M1 Vehicle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USpCu-Z1usk
The launch will be livestreamed on Twitter and Facebook by ISRO. You can also watch it on ISRO's website, on TV(through Doordarshan -Indian state channel), and on Doordarshan's YouTube channel as well. The launch is at 2:51 AM IST(9:21 PM UTC).
Let’s hope they remember to close the hatch before takeoff.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a147838...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a147838...
No organization ever managed to land on the moon so far on the first try. My guess is that this won't be any different.
No organization had ever put an orbiter around Mars in their first try. Until Mars Orbiter Mission of ISRO in 2014. I wouldn't rule them out. ;)
https://www.isro.gov.in/mars-orbiter-mission-completes-1000-...
https://www.isro.gov.in/mars-orbiter-mission-completes-1000-...
Maybe they have the benefit of learning from the failures of other countries? Not sure how much space agencies share information with each other.
Interestingly, India is the first country to successfully send a Mars probe on the first attempt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_1
The US series of surveyor probes landed on the moon on the first try. I think it's reasonable to argue that these were the first US attempts to land on the moon - while the Ranger probes had seismometer capsules with retrorockets, they were meant to crash into the moon at 150 miles per hour and survive.
The US series of surveyor probes landed on the moon on the first try. I think it's reasonable to argue that these were the first US attempts to land on the moon - while the Ranger probes had seismometer capsules with retrorockets, they were meant to crash into the moon at 150 miles per hour and survive.
Hmm this is a really morbid thought but I wonder when we'll see the first person die on the moon. Will it be an astronaut or a civilian? What would be different today if the Apollo 11 crew never came back?
It is also carrying one satellite of NASA. on top of that...India is planning to land their rover on south pole of the moon which is no yet done by any other country.By this probably we will get new information about moon which helps us to get more insights about chances of life on moon.
Behind the scenes video of the mission.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGaxR9yrUQY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGaxR9yrUQY
[deleted]
The sarcasm in the article leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
aslam2014(11)
I lived in India for several years. Given I was on assignment from the US, I wasn’t affected by the poverty but I saw it every single day. Personally, I find this technological effort exciting, but I would imagine that those less fortunate would find this a deeply irresponsible use of resources.
Something in the line of 'Making America|India|<country X> Great Again' I guess.
Good for them. Personally it helps me (living very comfortably in an European country) not to feel any guild reading articles like https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/world/asia/india-water-cr...
Good for them. Personally it helps me (living very comfortably in an European country) not to feel any guild reading articles like https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/11/world/asia/india-water-cr...
I can definitely say that you just have an average mind.
I’ve been to India, and seeing the catastrophic living condition of the majority of its citizens makes me question if going to the moon is the right priority.
Similar argument can be made about homelessness in San Francisco and other cities. Poverty elimination and tech progress can go hand in hand. In fact, it can help: https://homelessness.paulallen.com/
Not really the same thing, the per capita GDP of the US is vastly higher than India.
A lot of that homeless could be solved with more equal wealth distribution.
30:1 between US and India according to google (not accounting for PPP).
A lot of that homeless could be solved with more equal wealth distribution.
30:1 between US and India according to google (not accounting for PPP).
The argument I was answering to was "I have seen catastrophic living conditions" thus "India should not". Of course, India needs a different approach and India has different problems. But in perspective, Indian defense imports are 100B USD and this mission costs 1.4B USD. India does not buy any missiles anymore. French Rafales cost India 5-10 B USD. This is the price India pays to be able to stand up to China in Doklam.
There is always one comment like this. But fine.
It always is worth. These things inspire the nation. Instill pride. They work wonders. And India's space program is much less expensive than many other nations. India sent a rocket to Mars that was cheaper than the budget for the movie Interstellar.
It always is worth. These things inspire the nation. Instill pride. They work wonders. And India's space program is much less expensive than many other nations. India sent a rocket to Mars that was cheaper than the budget for the movie Interstellar.
At the end of the day what is needed is to create wealth, not to spend it. Spending wealth while lots of people in the country are living in poverty in a way, that doesn't directly address this problem may come off as having the wrong priorities. This is about perception.
Space is an excellent opportunity to create wealth and provide employment. So your argument is still wrong.
Also I would like to add, the govt has now a made a private corp called New Space India Limited, which will help in commercialization of tech developed by ISRO
How would you use space to create wealth?
Many long term investments. Space tourism, satellite launches for other countries (which India does), asteroid mining, tech innovation, SCIENCE!!!
Sounds like a pipe dream. I wouldn't lend you money for your wild fantasies.
I respect your opinion and would respect your decision. Although would not stop looking for funding elsewhere. Even a failure in such endeavors gives a great return on investment. Many modern tech wonders are a direct result of space research. Humanity has to be a space faring civilization, else our future generations will go extinct. Imagine if our ancestors had stopped exploring the oceans until all of humanity's problems were solved.
I agree with your general point, I just think that it doesn't make sense to pump money into this endeavour until there's clean drinking water for everyone. Once there's wealth to spend, space is a nice goal. On the other hand I do not personally care about the fate of millions impoverished Indians and wouldn't mind sacrificing their lives towards the goal of space exploration. All I'm saying is that the priorities here may be perceived as being wrong.
Are you joking? Have you seen the amount of space ventures that have gone bankrupt? Try and start a rocket company and go look for funding. It's a terrible opportunity to create wealth in the short term (10/20/30 year timespan). However, in the 30-50 year timespan, it seems like a terrific opportunity to create wealth (perhaps rivaled only by nuclear fusion) if we can work our way up to sustainable/reusable rockets and colonies on Mars/Moons. If we can get asteroid operations set up and start exploring the rest of the solar system (and eventually the galaxy) then we can have a society without scarcity.
The main problem is, we will all probably die before we see the benefit (instead we'll see losses). So, how do we value the lives of posterity in comparison today.
I find it ironic how the same people who use the "think of the children" argument the most are also the most against investing in space exploration.
My bias is also that we should value posterity the same as we value humans alive today. But then again, we still can't even agree on the basic question of whether a life in Africa is worth the same as a life in the United States.
The main problem is, we will all probably die before we see the benefit (instead we'll see losses). So, how do we value the lives of posterity in comparison today.
I find it ironic how the same people who use the "think of the children" argument the most are also the most against investing in space exploration.
My bias is also that we should value posterity the same as we value humans alive today. But then again, we still can't even agree on the basic question of whether a life in Africa is worth the same as a life in the United States.
There is always “one comment like this” because most people here are not poor. If poor people were in this community, then you’d see many more comments like this.
You think it’s worth it. I’m not saying it’s not worth it. I’m simply saying, if you ask poor people, many of them won’t think it’s worth it. And most people in India are very poor.
You think it’s worth it. I’m not saying it’s not worth it. I’m simply saying, if you ask poor people, many of them won’t think it’s worth it. And most people in India are very poor.
Lesson: HN does not like to think about the perspective of anyone who does not happen to have access to HN
Inspiration is a scarce commodity in our world. Going to the moon is one of the most potent sources of inspiration we have. There are countless stories of American engineers and scientists who can pinpoint their interest in STEM to the day they watched their people transcend our world and visit the stars. The net output of those people probably more than paid for the cost of the space missions.
The United States had plenty of homeless people when we went to the moon, perhaps we shouldn’t have?
I was thinking of that song as well. Time to record a Bollywood version?
I don't have a strong opinion about this, but your comment isn't really comparing apples to apples. The levels of poverty and poor living conditions in modern India are worse than we had in 1950s America.
The answer will depend on who you ask. Have you tried asking a homeless person? Or are you speaking on their behalf?
If the money spent on that program remains int eh country then it won't be a waste, the country will developer high technology and experts. If they say would pay for US to send stuff to space all those money would make rich a few US citizens.
You don't have the whole picture from what you have seen. Have you been to SF? Have you been to LA. Have you seen problems caused by drugs in US? Every country has problems
Note to the downvoters: They automatically assume I said it’s not worth it. But actually I simply said we should question it, meaning consider it from all sides.
Is analyzing things before during and after making decisions no longer an acceptable thing to do in 2019?
Is analyzing things before during and after making decisions no longer an acceptable thing to do in 2019?
So how much do you think the Indians are spending on the space mission, how much of it should be taken away and applied towards poverty elimination and how exactly do you see that working? Hand over the money, build toilets, food rationing, power availability - all of that they are doing in parallel to their space program and those aren't things that just magically disappear by throwing more money at them.
This is false dichotomy - one doesn't have to cease for other to exist and ceasing one doesn't automatically make the other better.
This is false dichotomy - one doesn't have to cease for other to exist and ceasing one doesn't automatically make the other better.
> So how much do you think the Indians are spending on the space mission, how much of it should be taken away and applied towards poverty elimination and how exactly do you see that working?
All very good questions. I think the act of asking them is more important than merely stating that the space program is either worth it or not worth it.
All very good questions. I think the act of asking them is more important than merely stating that the space program is either worth it or not worth it.
https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/trends/chandrayaan-2-mee...