Live data from Hacker News

India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

nytimes.com

181–190 of 221 posts

Re: India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

#181

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 engin…

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…

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.

Re: India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

#182

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-...

NASA provided deep space navigation and tracking support services to this mission during the non-visible period of the Indian Deep Space Network.

Re: India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

#183
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

Football isn't. We do spend billions paying for stadiums, and the infrastructure to allow people to drive to them.

Re: India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Re: India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

#185
post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

#186

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 engin…

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…

> 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".

Re: India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

#187
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: India is sending a rover to the moon, and the country is pumped

#190
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Post reply on HN