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

101–110 of 167 posts

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#101

Post by lukealization »

danielweber wrote: post #37
aq3cn wrote: post #5

As much I know ISRO has less failure rate and they get the job with little budget in comparison to NASA or any other space agencies. This alone is the reason, one might be tempted to use Indian technology. > India's Mars mission, with a budget of $73 million, is far cheaper than comparable missions including NASA's $671 million Maven satellite that is expected to set off for Mars later in November. Source: http://www…

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 price you quote for a SpaceX launch covers the reusable portion of the payload only, not the full unlocked capability of the launch vehicle. That's an Apple's to Oranges comparison.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#102

Post by lukealization »

jakub_h wrote: post #81
kchoudhu wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sun-Earth L1, while not in Earth's orbit, is still within the Earth's Sphere Of Influence as it has a negative Characteristic Energy value.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#103

Post by greglindahl »

jakub_h wrote: post #81
kchoudhu wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cite?

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#104

Post by 1474295912 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #77
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…

The discussion here is a good look at some of the complexity. I disagreed with some of the innuendo of the article but basically the notion of helping fund external space capability is complex. The goal of the Regan administration appeared to be to enable commerce with countries that already had a certain level of technology without risking destabilizing their own industry. So imagine that what you're trying to achie…

> So India could "fix" this by signing on to the treaty and agreeing to the restrictions. They choose not to it seems (I have no idea why)

Indians are fiercely proud of their space program, which is in opinion a wonderful feat in terms of technology. Their main objective is to use it for Indian interests, like Oceans, weather and defence etc. They've no interest in pursuing extra business, if it comes at the cost of bowing down to US stipulations. They're getting nice business from many countries in the world like Germany, France, African nations etc.

Source : I've read "Wings of fire" by APJ Kalam, which gives an interesting insiders view into ISRO/DRDO.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#105

Post by vkou »

M_Grey wrote: post #97
vkou wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States and Russia have been in a nuclear deadlock since both sides got their hands on ICBMs. Neither adhere to a no-first-use doctrine. That means that they reserve the right to scorch the world with nuclear fire, in response to an attack by conventional weapons. It's hard to pin down exactly how disproportionate this level of hubris is.

Maybe it's the decades of arms reductions, the diplomatic relations, and the lack of a highly disputed border area which periodically erupts into violence? But no... it must just be a double standard... if you squint hard enough.

As opposed to decades of proxy wars, sponsoring terrorism, election-dependent schizophrenia on the part of the Department of State, and much larger weapon arsenals?

The decades of arms reductions still put the arsenals of either the US, or Russia at ~10 times that of India and Pakistan combined.

At least India has a no-first-use policy. I'm not saying things are better in that conflict, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#106

Post by kchoudhu »

greglindahl wrote: post #103
jakub_h wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cite?

I don't object to the respondent: it's true, SpaceX has broken out of earth orbit -- but that's still a far cry from deploying to Mars.

My point stands: SpaceX needs to get to Mars once before we can start calling them serious interplanetary contenders.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#107

Post by greglindahl »

exDM69 wrote: post #43
seren wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rocket is an intercontinental ballistic missile with a different flight plan. So every nuclear power want to stay ahead in the game.

I think the US is just adding a self-imposed constraint that hinders their own progress. Other nations have built ICBMs and have space launch capabilities too. The US is not significanltly "ahead in the game" and their development is slowed down by hiring US citizens only in the aerospace industry. Not all rockets are practical as ICBMs. ICBMs tend to use storable (hypergolic) propellants so they can be maintained an…

Are there any remaining ICBMs that use liquid propellants? Liquid-fueled ICBMs vulnerable to a first strike, not to mention all those messy accidents with hypergolic fuels.

Also, China's new Long March 5/6/7 rocket series reduces Chinese use of hypergolic fuels to a minimum. All 3 have now launched at least once.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#108

Post by greglindahl »

shripadk wrote: post #88
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.

ISRO doesn't appear to pay competitive salaries for engineers. The Russian space program had a lot of challenges when engineering wages went up a lot. India's success with outsourcing and other engineering is the cause. It will be interesting to see what ISRO's costs look like when increased salaries ripple through their workforce.

BTW there are several startups targeting small satellites. One is the Electron rocket from Rocket Labs. There's also the European Vega rocket, and Japan's Epsilon rocket. SpaceX has already had one launch purchased by a company that groups together small satellites to launch together.[1]

All in all, small launches are a very active market.

1: http://www.spaceflight.com/spaceflight-purchases-spacex-falc...

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#109

Post by rajathagasthya »

M_Grey wrote: post #65
rajathagasthya wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By assisting India you're paying for their ICBM development India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. Also, India has done well without the assistance of the US in space technology and will continue to do so. So if the US doesn't want to assist in technology, it's not going to be a show stopper for India. It will continue to eat…

They're also one of the two countries still in a nuclear deadlock with their fingers on the "button". Lets be realistic about this.

> nuclear deadlock with their fingers on the "button"

So much sensationalism in this comment! It's like watching a sensationalist news channel. Anyone who follows India-Pakistan politics know that nuclear war is unlikely. Neither of them can afford another war.

The "realistic" situation is that unless nuclear weapons end up in the hands of terrorists in Pakistan, there is no real nuclear threat.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#110

Post by zeusk »

7Z7 wrote: post #91
sqeaky wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is a cat still in the bag. China and Russia are already cats out of the bag. Other more sophisticated means are required where they are concerned

How is India still in the bag? Don't they already have ICBM/nuke capabilities?

It does, look at AGNI-V and AGNI-VI
Post reply on HN