Delayed by five years, eh ?
What's to bet we'll be hearing that song again ?
India's Department of Space has outlined plans to send its first astronaut to space next year, establish a space station by 2035, and land an Indian on the Moon by 2045. Minister of Science and Technology Dr Jitendra Singh called establishing the Bhartiya Antariksh Station – which was first publicly announced in 2019 – and the …
Monkeys on the Moon - the first classic song as a result of our original visit to the moon
This post has been deleted by its author
The UK owes India more money right now than all aid it has ever sent India.
Don't believe it ? Look at BoE's foreign holders of government debt. Or look at the foreign holders of US debt for that matter: https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
India holds $675 billion in foreign exchange reserves - the world's 4th largest behind China, Japan and Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign-exchange_reserves
Around $250 billion of that is in US debt and $50-60 billion in UK debt.
Those current IOU numbers are more than all money either country has cumulatively sent to India in all history.
The Daily Mail types here have been parrotting the same 'they're doing what with MY money ??' indignation for about 30 years now, while the world's left them behind.
Because our pollical master like to brag about how they are helping the poorest of the world on the political stage, while ignoring home grown poverty, as it doesn't give them enough street cred. This may upset a few, but all overseas aid should be stopped, money spent at home and only then anything left over donated to Charites to use and audited. We all know billions get redirected to private accounts and terrorists and governments turn a blind eye !
Because none of this, not space stations, not moon bases, will make any meaningful contribution to science and technology. It's purely a flex, nothing more, and sorry no sorry, but that's a bit a a steep price-tag for flexing, when there are so so so very many better things to spend money on.
As for my first sentence, I realize that this is somewhat of a bummer for space exploration fans, but it's true. Space Stations and Moon Bases sound cool, but aren't. Why? Because they all share the same fundamental design-flaw: They waste the majority of resources on keeping a bunch of, comparative to the alternative, very fragile biological components alive (aka. Humans), the job of which could be done at a fraction of the cost using robots.
Robotic drones don't require water and food or breathable air. I don't have to worry about getting rid of their waste products. They don't lose bone density or suffer circulation problems in microgravity. They don't suffer nasty unexpected health surprises (google "herpes virus reactivation in astronauts" sometimes). They have no need for bulky spacesuits eating into precious launch-capacity. They don't need a relieve crew every few months. And when the mission is over, I can just leave them there and sell T-Shirts with their silhouette instead of worrying about how to get them back home, preferably in one piece and alive (which in itself multiplies all the engineering hassles and resource requirements). And if disaster strikes, it is embarrassing, and blows up a ton of cash, but no one is going to have to set any flags to half mast, and see entire space programs shut down in the fallout.
"But but but ... Apollo?!? They had people in those rockets?!"
They sure did. Because there was no alternative. Computers and robotics in the 60/70s were nowhere near as advanced as they are today. But today we manufacture electronic components so tiny, chip designers have to worry about qantum-mechanics, and the thing I carry in my pocket to watch cat pictures, has likely more memory and computing power than all the computers in the world back then combined.
And technology gets better every year. The stuff we can build today would seem like science fiction less than a decade past. Just think what kind of robots we will have 10-20 years from now.
Humans in 20 years, on the other hand, will be just as frail, vulnerable and needing bathroom breaks and oxygen as they do today.
So, for the forseeable future, if you are excited about space exploration, you should be excited about robotics, not people in spacesuits.
"They sure did. Because there was no alternative. Computers and robotics in the 60/70s were nowhere near as advanced as they are today"
Yes there was.
Apart from physically "walking on the moon" the entire Apollo mission from launch to splash down could have been run automatically via Mission Control and the two Apollo Guidance Computers - one in the CSM and one in the LM.
They never did a fully automated lunar landing for one reason only - astronauts egos wouldn't permit it. In fact a fully automated "test landing" was discussed but killed because if the first Apollo LM landed with nobody onboard, the American public would rightly have said - "why are spending all the money to send men when a machine can do it?"
Launch was handled entirely by the IM computer in the Saturn V and Mission Control. The "astronauts" were just passengers, or as the oft used expression so aptly put it, "spam in a can".
Getting a man on the moon - i.e. Apollo - was all about beating the Soviet Union in space for political reasons.
Voyager 1 & 2 were designed and built using 60's/70's technology and BOTH are still exploring.
https://science.nasa.gov/mission/voyager/where-are-they-now/
The first space shuttle computers (five per shuttle) used core memory! How advanced the technology is nowhere near as important for spacecraft as reliability and ability to "harden" them for use in space.
Though I entirely agree with your point about robotic spacecraft. You didn't clearly state the biggest disadvantage to using humans - the expect to come back,alive.
In the interim, one might favor less-costly and dangerous innerspace exploration through sci-fi movies indeed, and "get carried away" (next AC komment) without actually having to face the unfriendly skies of outerspace, in real life.
A sequel to Antariksham 9000 KMPH and a space-version of China Captain could be cool (thrilling) competitors in this IMHO!
not space stations, not moon bases, will make any meaningful contribution to science and technology
let's admit that for the sake of the argument : so what ? Why do you pretend that science and technology should be the driving force in space exploration ? As for price, and since we're on an IT site here, can you please explain what Humanity gains with hundreds of billions of profit every year from IT companies whose sole purpose is to dumb Humanity down ? I prefer thousand times to tax the Google/Apple/Amazon/Microsoft/Oracle/Nvidia/Intel.... to death and bring humans into space than read such platitudes from armchair warriors.
I invite you to wake up : computers suck, real life is great.
NASA to human: "Did you arrive on Mars on the Boeing?"
Human: "Yes, why?".
NASA: "We've some bad news. About getting home....."
Human: "What sort of bad news?"
NASA: "Your not. Getting home that is"
Human: "You f**** c**** tw***s!"
NASA: "Good news! There's a flashlight you can use to try and hitch a lift on any Vogon or other alien ship that might be passing".
Oh yes, September 24, 1952, first day of the finger lickin' good era of yummyness (soon to join burgers and pizza in spaaaaace?)!
With Solein making Finnish roast beef out of thin air (paahtopaisti), there should be hope yet for fresh KFC in space, much beyond zero-gravity vertical Matrix chicken farms ...
"The minister said over Rs 1,000 crore ($120.5 million)"
I thought India puts the comma before every second digit rather than every third, hence the word crore which is one hundred hundreds: 1,00,00 (equal to 10,000 in UK/US terminology). If that's the case, shouldn't it say "10,00 crore" (ten hundred crore) instead?
Genuine question, hopefully someone with local knowledge can clarify.
LOL I thought I had enough local knowledge but I just realized India puts comma after 3 digits up to some numbers and after 2 digits beyond that e.g. 1,000; 10,000; but 1,00,000 and 1,00,00,000. But it shouldn't come as a surprise in a nation full of diversity: Feet for short distance but Meter for intermediate distance and Kilometer for long distance; square feet for apartment size in colloquial context but square meter for the same thing in leave and license agreement; Fahrenheit for body temperature but centigrade for weather.
The Indian Space Research Organisation is a profitable agency. For every $1 spent, ISRO procures $2.54, thus earning $1.54 in profit. ISRO is a governmental agency of India and is one of the few governmental agencies which has procured profit to the government (since its establishment in 1969). The agency is in profit because it offers satellite launches and manufacturing at very low prices. This especially attracts countries who cannot launch their own satellites, such as singapore, brazil, etc. Mind you, the total budget of ISRO's Mars Rover called Mangalyaan was less than the budget of the famous film 'Interstellar'.
Looks like you are talking of YOUR nation. looks like you are listening to Khalistanis or Islamists who absolutely hate us for just existing, or that idi0t Raul Vinci, of Italian origin who wants to destroy Hinduism and India and hand over parts to China and Pakistan, one for funds, the other for Muslim votes.
Remember, you are so degenerate and lost that you need Indian imports even to play chess, which you should remember, we invented. Not to mention the Zero, the decimal system, positive and negative numbers and positive and negative infinity.
That goes beyond burning: that makes you lose your mental balance. Good! You lived for over 200 years stealing our money. Now that India is lost, you are simply sinking to your natural level.