Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why America Needs India’s Rockets

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 167 posts

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#81

Post by jakub_h »

kchoudhu wrote: post #76
danielweber wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MOM and MAVEN were just about simultaneous (arriving at Mars two days apart), but they weren't comparable. MOM's primary mission objectives were things like "navigation." MAVEN would be NASA's 3rd orbiter at the time, to say nothing of the 4 or so previous orbiters, and so they weren't trying to just repeat earlier things. Now, if you compare launch costs, you get a better feel for the differences. Those were about $…

The difference being, of course, that the Falcon 9 Full Thrust hasn't actually left Earth orbit yet. Mark to market applies as much to space technology as it does to credit default swaps.

Falcon already delivered DSCOVR to Sun-Earth L1, while PSLV only flew MOM to a highly elliptical Earth orbit and MOM had to use its own propulsion for TMI.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#82

Post by rounak »

gnipgnip wrote: post #16

Indian PSU research centers are well-known for being incompetent (including DRDO, CSIR, HAL...) [1]; in this ISRO is something of an oasis (or so I've heard). These orgs are generally neither nimble, nor particularly interested in acquiring talent, unlike their American competitors (or even NASA). Hiring is often one large nationwide JEE-like exam held once a year to recruit new engineers. Not surprisingly few Engine…

Somewhat related. Three ISRO scientists did an AMA a couple of years back. https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/1ujcmo/we_are_three_...

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#83

Post by shripadk »

bzbarsky wrote: post #67
actuator wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know on what you are basing the destabilization threat on. India has a no first usage policy on nuclear weapons [1] and has shown no intent of using the weapons. Also in all the wars in which India was involved, it was never the aggressor. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...

> Also in all the wars in which India was involved, it was never the aggressor. That's a bit of rewriting of history right there. I suppose you will claim that India's involvement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_... was simply connivance and instigation by the government, not active participation by the Indian military? But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Portuguese_India wa…

You really need to read up on Indian history my friend.

The first and second article you link to is Indian territory that was re-acquired after India's Independence. At that time, India was not even a nuclear power.

The third article (about Bangladesh liberation) was not because "India was actively arming and training insurgents inside what was at the time Pakistan". Are you seriously so naive to buy into Pakistani propaganda?

The issue was that Pakistan itself was an aggressor which caused massive migration crisis (similar to what is happening now in Syria). With a massive influx of East Pakistani's into Indian soil, India had no choice but to get involved in the conflict. Even to this day there are hundreds of thousands of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants who have settled in India (who fled from the atrocities of East Pakistan).

About Siachen conflict: What part of the conflict do you think India was an aggressor? I really think you have superficial understanding of India's policy towards it's neighbors.

I can counter all your points with just 1 point: During the 1971 Indo-Pak war (with Pakistan as the clear aggressor), Indian army not just defeated Pakistan, but it also marched all the way to Lahore, Pakistan and occupied parts of Lahore. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahore_Front

India could have kept the occupied territory to itself (like how Pakistan has done with Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir and China with parts of Arunachal). However, it chose to honor a ceasefire agreement that was about to be signed (Note: "about to be signed". Pakistan continues to violate that ceasefire agreement to this day) and returned parts of the city of Lahore back to Pakistan. Have you ever heard of any country that returned conquered land back, on it's own volition, immediately after occupying it?

We also returned 90,000 odd war prisoners to Pakistan with dignity and respect (Read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_(1971)_pris...). See a video of the surrender here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI6qymVwkVA

Heard of any country that returned captured war prisoners (especially of that magnitude)?

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#85

Post by kerbalspacepro »

Animats wrote: post #75
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> like it lost the ability to launch people. The US has not remotely lost the ability to launch people in the context you're suggesting (lost knowledge, lost budget, lost political will). Its literally between launch systems. No knowledge or budget has been lost. On top of it, its doing what no other nation seems able to do, spark a space race between corporations with their own goals and cost-cutting measures. That'…

The US has not remotely lost the ability to launch people in the context you're suggesting (lost knowledge, lost budget, lost political will). Its literally between launch systems. NASA has failed at how many launch system projects since the Space Shuttle?

Two.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#86

Post by user5994461 »

exDM69 wrote: post #44
user5994461 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll note that countries in Europe also require to be an European citizen for this line of work.

As far as I know, for jobs in the ESA, you must be a citizen of an ESA member nation (not the same as EU). I'm not sure if there are similar restrictions to the US that apply to working aerospace industry jobs (say Airbus).

> I'm not sure if there are similar restrictions to the US that apply to working aerospace industry jobs (say Airbus).

There are. Hence my initial message ^^

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#87

Post by kerbalspacepro »

jwtadvice wrote: post #60

Another reason is that, with respect to the rise of China, the United States is committing to investing in a rising India to challenge China economically, politically, and militarily. Somehow the article fails to mention the burgeoning defense relationship between India and the United States, and the US imperatives to build out regional challengers and opposition to a China that is growing in power.

The article also fails to mention the existing defense relationship between Pakistan and the United States, and the United States' imperative to make sure that India and Pakistan both fear the other enough to not do anything rash.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#88

Post by shripadk »

fdsaaf wrote: post #72

Use IRSO and we all lose. India's government is subsidizing these rockets. SpaceX, on the other hand, is developing technology that really makes space travel cheaper. Only the latter will move us forward in the long term.

How does Indian government financing ISRO have anything to do with the cost of the rocket? ISRO is wholly owned by the Government. Would the cost of building the rocket be substantially higher if it was a private company? Nope!

SpaceX is developing technology that makes "space travel cheaper" not "deploying small satellites cheaper". Both fall into different categories altogether.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#89

Post by option_greek »

manishsharan wrote: post #68
gnipgnip wrote: post #16

Indian PSU research centers are well-known for being incompetent (including DRDO, CSIR, HAL...) [1]; in this ISRO is something of an oasis (or so I've heard). These orgs are generally neither nimble, nor particularly interested in acquiring talent, unlike their American competitors (or even NASA). Hiring is often one large nationwide JEE-like exam held once a year to recruit new engineers. Not surprisingly few Engine…

You make a lot of sweeping disdainful generalization and I don't have time to correct all of them. However, I can speak about DRDO-- I began my s/w career as a student intern in DRDO -- I worked in a lab that was developing Nag anti tank missiles. This was a hard and complex undertaking and we had very few resources. TCS etc have better computers than DRDO . And yet the people I worked were dedicated professionals an…

Weirdly, I had an opposite experience as an intern in DRDO. I found the employees wasting enormous amount of time on tea/lunch breaks and waiting at the swipe gate 15 min in advance in the evenings to bug out. The low level cadre are the worst in this. Scientists (regardless of their level) seem to be passionate about their work but the support personnel assigned to them hinder a lot. A lot of manufacturing (and design) seem to be outsourced to third parties and the highest cadre is busy minting money from these contracts. I felt sad about state of things during my internship - considering that it was known to be in great condition when APJ was around.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#90

Post by zeusk »

avar wrote: post #3
pm90 wrote: post #2

On the one hand, its rather interesting to see the US, champion of free and open markets, enforce a policy so against that very principle. If I'm not mistaken, not only is US policy meant to assist the private space industry in the US, but to also avoid indirectly assisting the Indian missile/ballistic missile program. Although in India's defense the agency that develops/manages/deploys satellites (ISRO) is separate…

This is because any mature rocket technology can trivially be adjusted to be a nuclear weapons delivery platform. By assisting India you're paying for their ICBM development. Maybe the line shouldn't be drawn at rockets, but unless you think we should have free & open markets for nuclear weapons I daresay you think the line should be drawn somewhere.

It's funny how US is okay with providing India with Uranium, but space launch contracts? Oh no! They could build ICBMs with that tech!
Post reply on HN