81–90 of 297 posts
It seems it was supposed to be a polar landing, which should be harder (I think) than landing from an equatorial arrival Nonetheless, this is rocket science and failures are very common and not unexpected. Too bad, but it happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the successful landing would've been a political bragging point, could contact have been lost deliberately by people with a different political affiliation?
I am anti Modi but I so much wanted this mission to succeed. ISRO is the only organization in India which is doing great on global level. It was really irritating the moment Modi turned this mission into his PR gimmick. Had this mission succeeded, the public euphoria would have been something unparalleled. Recently public reactions to Pulwama attack (months of protesting, candle light marches), article 370 issue (peo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are unnecessarily making this political. Even if India was successful at landing i dont think the government would count it as 'their' achievement rather would be counted as an achievement of the whole nation. And even 'non-blind' followers would celebrate, given how everyone were on edge of their seats yesterday. Also no one is bashing Nehru because he started ISRO. Calling the moon landing a government…
> I think you are unnecessarily making this political GP is just highlighting that India's ruling party made this unnecessarily political. I'm not sure why it's being downvoted when it's factually accurate and is interesting in the context of the discussion. This is exactly the same thing that was going on in the Soviet Union where space project schedules were dictated by key party dates and celebrations. Not sure if…
Could you share some citations to justify your comment? There is no evidence out there that Chandrayaan was politicized by the Government. ISRO is funded by the Government and Department of Space directly comes under the PM. So, there is bound to be some Government/Minister presence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We’re different groups of people with different interests, different values, different ideas principles cultures histories views of the world. It’s good for us to be competing to explore space (and in trying to develop technological advantages in general). For countries like India it’s critical to develop their own technologies on this front. Otherwise they’ll remain eternally dependent on America, etc., for acce…
Well let's revisit this statement in 500 years. Every decade has brought the world closer. Even the recent developments (brexit, trump) are reactions to increased pace of integration. You can find kfc, coca cola in socities as diverse as Mongolia and Madagascar. It will be extremely difficult to turn the clock back on this and this will only keep on intensifying in my opinion.
Before we got to see what the internet actually became, it was a realm of endless idealism. It was going to be something that would finally unite people across cultures and any sort of boundaries. People would be able to share ideas, communicate instantly, and effectively turn humanity from a disparate group of people separated by arbitrary lines into simple a group of diverse and interesting people all sharing and communicating among one another. Instead we used its filtering ability to break down into even smaller groups than before. Before the internet Americans were mostly unified by an American identity. Now instead we've splintered off into a whole host of little subculture identities driven by the great ability of the internet to unite niches and expel the nonbelievers.
But this isn't about the internet. It's about people. Birmingham is one of the most "integrated" cities in England. This [1] page has heat maps showing the various religions there. There's basically no overlap. Instead of integration you have the Muslim section, the Christian section, the Jew section, etc. Even the Sikhs have there own little section, though granted they do share it a bit with the Hindus. Now instead of having one mostly unified city you now have a half dozen cities that have some very sharp cultural conflicts. The irony that literally bringing people closer together can, figuratively, do the exact opposite.
Even the notion that we're becoming more integrated is something I'd question. This [2] is a video showing the borders of the world over time. The surprising thing you'll notice is that, over time, divisions between society have actually been accelerating. Check out the mid 1200s. The Mongols created a single unified empire than stretched from western europe to eastern asia. Very near the entire known world at the time. No need for borders when there's one world government, and one that was also extremely tolerant of foreign cultures. Can you imagine living in this time and then somebody saying that within a couple of centuries the entire empire would be scattered like ashes in the wind?
And like nearly all the empire collapses you can see in that video, it was caused by internal culture clashes. Should the Mongol empire adopt western traditions and become a sedentary settled empire, or should it remain a putative Mongol empire? One side said x, the other said y, lots of people died, the empire broke up. A story told a million times on various scales. Of course even if they had chosen one direction or another, it likely would have had the same ending because once one side or another reached a critical mass - you'd see the emergence of internal insurrections.
Of course we've had a pause in open war since 1945 but nuclear deterrence isn't going to last forever. Imagine there were no nuclear weapons today. Do you think China, the Mideast, the United States, China, Russia, Europe, etc would still be maintaining the already tenuous peace we have? Without nuclear weapons the Cold War would not have been the Cold War, it would have been World War 3. And as soon as nuclear deterrence can be nullified by technological means, I expect we'll be quite quick to pick right back up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. We’re different groups of people with different interests, different values, different ideas principles cultures histories views of the world. It’s good for us to be competing to explore space (and in trying to develop technological advantages in general). For countries like India it’s critical to develop their own technologies on this front. Otherwise they’ll remain eternally dependent on America, etc., for acce…
Your post has "false dichotomy" written all over it. Of course, space exploration is an international endeavor and most space missions are highly international. Planning international space exploration missions doesn't force anyone to give up their nation, just as global trade does not imply that. Moreover, if mankind ever expands into space, it would be rather naive to think that earth's nations would play a role th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are unnecessarily making this political. Even if India was successful at landing i dont think the government would count it as 'their' achievement rather would be counted as an achievement of the whole nation. And even 'non-blind' followers would celebrate, given how everyone were on edge of their seats yesterday. Also no one is bashing Nehru because he started ISRO. Calling the moon landing a government…
Considering the recent occupation, house arrest, and disabling of all cellular communications of the entire region of Kashmir, it’s worth considering the possibility that this scientific effort was made for political ends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the successful landing would've been a political bragging point, could contact have been lost deliberately by people with a different political affiliation?
I am anti Modi but I so much wanted this mission to succeed. ISRO is the only organization in India which is doing great on global level. It was really irritating the moment Modi turned this mission into his PR gimmick. Had this mission succeeded, the public euphoria would have been something unparalleled. Recently public reactions to Pulwama attack (months of protesting, candle light marches), article 370 issue (peo…
ISRO is funded by the Government and PM heads the Department of Sapce. So, what did you expect him to do? Nod off and go to sleep. It's actually good to have a PM who stands by country's scientists even at the time of failure(and not just at the time of success).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well let's revisit this statement in 500 years. Every decade has brought the world closer. Even the recent developments (brexit, trump) are reactions to increased pace of integration. You can find kfc, coca cola in socities as diverse as Mongolia and Madagascar. It will be extremely difficult to turn the clock back on this and this will only keep on intensifying in my opinion.
> Every decade has brought the world closer. Well, (1) there are more sovereign nations now than ever, (2) all the big empires (from Babylonian, to Alexander's, to Roman, to Byzantium, to Persian, to Incas, all the way to the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, British and French colonial empires, USSR, and more) -aside from the Chinese and Indian who are more homogenous racially/culturally - have collapsed (3) there is way m…
I read that the maximum experiments are in the orbiter so this is a successful mission. The only thing for which it 'failed' was to let the ruling class do chest thumping by saying 'we are the fourth country to land a rover'. The ruling party had planned a great celebration today for it's 100 days in office, a date coinciding when the rover would land! They wanted to milk it for their nationalistic purposes while the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are unnecessarily making this political. Even if India was successful at landing i dont think the government would count it as 'their' achievement rather would be counted as an achievement of the whole nation. And even 'non-blind' followers would celebrate, given how everyone were on edge of their seats yesterday. Also no one is bashing Nehru because he started ISRO. Calling the moon landing a government…
> I think you are unnecessarily making this political GP is just highlighting that India's ruling party made this unnecessarily political. I'm not sure why it's being downvoted when it's factually accurate and is interesting in the context of the discussion. This is exactly the same thing that was going on in the Soviet Union where space project schedules were dictated by key party dates and celebrations. Not sure if…
So there is no 'factual' correctness in the comment. And adding political angle and then comparing India to Soviet based on that is unnecessary.