Should space exploration be only the developed world’s adventure?

[shashankac655]

Starting small and working up seems to be a good way to start. A few million here and there for small projects should work fine. When you say you want to do space exploration I think many of us are imagining something the size and scale of the apollo program or space shuttle program.

The primary intentions behind the setting up of ISRO(Indian space research organization) was to reduce the dependence on other countries for launching satellites that forecast weather and locate mineral resources and keep track on forest cover and for television etc..but recently ISRO thought of going a bit further but even then it has spent far less money for the lunar mission than what NASA or ESA or other big organizations would have spent for the same mission.

ISRO neither has the capability nor the intention to match NASA or the ESA and other big organizations anytime soon, ISRO’s ambitions and capabilities are modest compared to NASA and everything is done at lowest cost possible even then ISRO is not really so unsuccessful.

Comments and opinions will be appreciated.

If you and other people had read the OP properly before posting in this thread then you wouldn't have imagined something like that.

 

[Drakkith]

If you and other people had read the OP properly before posting in this thread then you wouldn't have imagined something like that.

Perhaps, but I stand by my earlier statements about the money being better spent elsewhere.

 

[shashankac655]

Perhaps, but I stand by my earlier statements about the money being better spent elsewhere.

space

And i have clearly justified in my previous post.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I agree with Drakkith that money could definitely be better spent in India, especially when you consider that countries like mine donate http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/feb/14/government-defends-1bn-aid-india" . Now I'm not opposed to aid in the slightest but it is a bit insulting when the country you give money to spends money on non-essential things rather than sorting out their own social problems first.

 

[shashankac655]

I agree with Drakkith that money could definitely be better spent in India, especially when you consider that countries like mine donate http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/feb/14/government-defends-1bn-aid-india" . Now I'm not opposed to aid in the slightest but it is a bit insulting when the country you give money to spends money on non-essential things rather than sorting out their own social problems first.

The money that others Countries are donating are not being spent on our space program.

Let me give the whole history of poverty in India (read the whole article and don't miss the last part.)

poverty in india

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The money that others Countries are donating are not being spent on our space program.

Let me give the whole history of poverty in India (read the whole article and don't miss the last part.)

poverty in india

I don't see your point? Perhaps you could state it clearly. I'm not saying that the aid program pays for the Indian space program however if India reduced it's space budget to 80% of what it is now it wouldn't need Britain's aid. Again I'm not against Aid, I'm just saying that a space agency shouldn't be a priority for a country that has so much poverty (unless there is some very good argument for how said space agency can relieve poverty somehow which I highly doubt).

 

[shashankac655]

I don't see your point? Perhaps you could state it clearly. I'm not saying that the aid program pays for the Indian space program however if India reduced it's space budget to 80% of what it is now it wouldn't need Britain's aid. Again I'm not against Aid, I'm just saying that a space agency shouldn't be a priority for a country that has so much poverty (unless there is some very good argument for how said space agency can relieve poverty somehow which I highly doubt.

i never said it should be(this question has been asked several times in this thread)

Removing poverty is not the aim behind the space program as i have said before that it has more to do with building confidence in our scientific community and it's about attracting young middle class(390 million) minds towards research in science and technology.The Indian middle class are not really interested in research right now ,it all about jetting jobs and settling in life at least they(people who can afford to think beyond just food and money) will get fascinated and may aim higher.

 

[thorium1010]

I'm just saying that a space agency shouldn't be a priority for a country that has so much poverty (unless there is some very good argument for how said space agency can relieve poverty somehow which I highly doubt).

I don't know about space exploration, but space agencies with capability to launch sateellites helps to alleviate poverty, monitors weather patterns also communication.

As far as space exploration is concerned its more of curiosity than practical use IMO.
One thing space agencies can help is in building new technologies which may benefit people.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

i never said it should be(this question has been asked several times in this thread)

So you agree with my point? I posted only because I was agreeing with Drakkiths point

 

[shashankac655]

So you agree with my point? I posted only because I was agreeing with Drakkiths point

Drakkith had an idea(or still has ,like many other people) that India is spending a huge portion of it's GDP on space program and is starving it's own people to death which is clearly not the case .

Space technology can have tangible benefits like satellite launches (commercialization)Antrix and not just national pride.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Drakkith had an idea(or still has ,like many other people) that India is spending a huge portion of it's GDP on space program and is starving it's own people to death which is clearly not the case .

I don't think he does and in either case that isn't the point I am agreeing with. What I am suggesting is that things like a space program should not get funding (or at least as much funding) if you are a country that relies on large amounts of foreign aid.

The only exception to this is if there is a good reason as to why a space agency should be funded i.e. it will stimulate the economy in a teach-a-man-to-fish kind of way but I really don't see any argument like this for a space agency.

 

[shashankac655]

I don't think he does and in either case that isn't the point I am agreeing with. What I am suggesting is that things like a space program should not get funding (or at least as much funding) if you are a country that relies on large amounts of foreign aid.

The only exception to this is if there is a good reason as to why a space agency should be funded i.e. it will stimulate the economy in a teach-a-man-to-fish kind of way but I really don't see any argument like this for a space agency.

foreign aid

India's dependence on foreign aid is coming down.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

foreign aid

India's dependence on foreign aid is coming down.

Good. Let's hope that it starts fuelling more resources into combating poverty and less into grand projects that it doesn't need.

 

[shashankac655]

Most people don't take into account of the size of India's population (1.2 Billion-almost 20% of the world's population) when they talk about India's poverty ,it is true that India has a large number of people below poverty line.(it's percentage of the people below poverty line
that should be considered ,whether it's going down or not)

ISRO mostly deals with launching satellites(low cost launches) countries which want to cut costs will turn to India and so it can have tangible benefits(the market is worth around $25 billion) as i have given a link in my previous post(Antrix).It has only recently started it's 'outside low-earth orbit' activities which are predominantly unmanned.

 

[D H]

I agree with Drakkith that money could definitely be better spent in India, especially when you consider that countries like mine donate http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2011/feb/14/government-defends-1bn-aid-india" . Now I'm not opposed to aid in the slightest but it is a bit insulting when the country you give money to spends money on non-essential things rather than sorting out their own social problems first.

That aid is but a bandaid to India's poverty problem. It does not solve the problem. Forcing India to direct all of its government spending toward feeding their poor will have but one outcome: They will have an even greater poverty problem. Other Asian countries have moved on to developed nation status because they have addressed the causes of their poverty problems. India has been a perpetually-developing nation because those causes are still rampant.

There are many root causes that underlie India's poverty problem. Some of them are excessive corruption, a still byzantine red tape system, an over-reliance on agriculture, a high birth rate, a low education rate, woeful infrastructure, ... Giving aid for the poor doesn't fix those problems. It just makes us in the west feel happy inside that we are doing something.

The only way to solve India's poverty problem is to address those root causes. India needs to build up its infrastructure, fix its political system, continue the economic reforms begun in the 1990s, educate its masses. The way out of the mess is to create a highly educated nation that depends much more on technology, much less on agriculture.

India's space program represents one of the many things that India is doing to pull itself out of its very deep morass. Could that money be better spent elsewhere? Possibly. But feeding the poor? While that is a needed bandaid, it does nothing to solve India's poverty problem.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm not saying that India should direct all government spending, it's just that on the basis of the space agency I can't see why it is more important for India's economy than other measures.

Yes it will bring in talent and stimulate Industry but space agencies don't exactly have a good track record of making money.

 

[MarcoD]

I'm not saying that India should direct all government spending, it's just that on the basis of the space agency I can't see why it is more important for India's economy than other measures.

Yes it will bring in talent and stimulate Industry but space agencies don't exactly have a good track record of making money.

Well, I don't know about the last statement. NASA was attributed with bringing forth little goodies like the digital watch. Of course, you can't repeat that effort, but you can employ a lot of engineers and see it as an investment in a healthy climate for a high-tech industry which will pay itself off eventually. (Though I guess it would pay off more if you would invest in, say, electric cars. But you can do both and make a buck with space adventures.)

 

[estro]

That aid is but a bandaid to India's poverty problem. It does not solve the problem. Forcing India to direct all of its government spending toward feeding their poor will have but one outcome: They will have an even greater poverty problem. Other Asian countries have moved on to developed nation status because they have addressed the causes of their poverty problems. India has been a perpetually-developing nation because those causes are still rampant.

There are many root causes that underlie India's poverty problem. Some of them are excessive corruption, a still byzantine red tape system, an over-reliance on agriculture, a high birth rate, a low education rate, woeful infrastructure, ... Giving aid for the poor doesn't fix those problems. It just makes us in the west feel happy inside that we are doing something.

The only way to solve India's poverty problem is to address those root causes. India needs to build up its infrastructure, fix its political system, continue the economic reforms begun in the 1990s, educate its masses. The way out of the mess is to create a highly educated nation that depends much more on technology, much less on agriculture.

India's space program represents one of the many things that India is doing to pull itself out of its very deep morass. Could that money be better spent elsewhere? Possibly. But feeding the poor? While that is a needed bandaid, it does nothing to solve India's poverty problem.

This post is a gem.
Can't agree more.

 

[shashankac655]

This post is a gem.
Can't agree more.

me too

 

[shashankac655]

I can't see why it is more important for India's economy than other measures.

Yes it will bring in talent and stimulate Industry but space agencies don't exactly have a good track record of making money.

Again you are asking the same question ,Space technology is not and will not be more important than other measures ,it is just one of many things India is trying to do that is related to modern technology.

The reason why space technology has very little tangible benefits now is because the pioneers (US and USSR)of this technology were not interested it.
http://laico.org/v2020resource/files/remote_rural_population.htm

space industry

 

[Ryan_m_b]

http://laico.org/v2020resource/files/remote_rural_population.htm

Now this is the kind of thing I was talking about! Something to show how an Indian space agency could benefit the big problems the country is facing.

 

[shashankac655]

Now this is the kind of thing I was talking about! Something to show how an Indian space agency could benefit the big problems the country is facing.

Also look at the link "space industry"...$120 billion now and growing ,now do you accept that we make money with space technology?

A lot of people say that what we need is a cheap way to launch objects into space. Actually, keeping launches expensive is good for US national security. Expensive launches means fewer countries capable of launching objects into space.

During the Cold war the two countries did not care about tangible benefits or about reducing costs and the security reason is stopping the US from doing it now.

 

[Drakkith]

It would have been helpful to have information such as this at the start of the thread, but oh well. That pretty much nullifies the entire point of the thread, since it seems pretty obvious now that there IS a tangible benefit other than the OP's original ideas. I'm all for it if it makes the country money.

 

[shashankac655]

It would have been helpful to have information such as this at the start of the thread, but oh well. That pretty much nullifies the entire point of the thread, since it seems pretty obvious now that there IS a tangible benefit other than the OP's original ideas. I'm all for it if it makes the country money.

Why shouldn’t we arouse public interest in space in the developing world? It make more people want to be a part of it ,it will attract people with talent, it will create jobs not just as scientists but also in the manufacture of aerospace products ,space technology itself can be commercialized (it already has) ISRO has launched many satellites of many countries and will continue to do that ,the “space industry” is not running at loss ,profits are being made and it will grow, when you commercialize anything it will not run out of money so easily even in the developing world ,there are always risks involved in trying out anything new and big. The “space industry” can be privatized and private companies can be given a chance to come with their ideas and government need not spend all on its own this lead to even more employment in the industry and will reduce costs. All this won’t happen over night or in a few years but the developing countries are capable of doing it in the near future, economies are growing fast in the developing world and as years roll on space technology is going to get cheaper and not more expensive like any other technology.

... Frankly, I think national pride is the primary reason most countries have space programs. If that's the reason, fine, but don't try to spin it as actually having tangeable benefit.

i have said a lot about tangible benefits before in the thread even in the proceeding pages,In the OP I mentioned about space technology most of it was just technology because space technology is a part of modern technology and there is nothing wrong in developing it when you know how to use it for practical benefits,i was under the assumption that everybody here are aware of the benefits of space technology that's why i didn't give any links but that wasn't the case. You and other people didn't know and that didn't stop you from coming up with all kinds of baseless arguments that space technology has nothing to do with any sort of development and it is only for those countries who have no other means for shelling out extra cash.I accept the did make a mistake of not sharing all that before.

There is no such thing as a technology that is destined to remain expensive forever and that it cannot have tangible benefits, every technology will have tangible benefits but for some it will take some time to realize it and the right attitude(reducing costs) just because some countries don’t want it to happen doesn’t mean other countries have to wait for them to do it. Space technology is young and was primarily developed by the US and USSR for national pride and they want it to remain expensive, the tangible benefits of it have not been given a thought for a long time and this is only the beginning.
Mining the moon
Of course it is difficult to mine on the moon because there is no air on the moon and traditional methods of mining will not work(and it might be several decades away and may be a 100 years away) but that is not a reason for not thinking about it .if you want technologies to get cheaper you can dream a lot but if you are under the assumption that certain technologies are destined to be horrifically expensive and useless you are certainly wrong.
The USA landed it’s men on the moon several times ,if only you and the USSR had thought of such tangible benefits you could have diverted all the money you spent on that pointless production of nuclear weapons to develop such new technologies that could have benefited humanity today.

 

[cmb]

I think the logic of the question is backwards. You could argue you are a developed country if you can undertake space exploration.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Mining the moon is a hole different kettle of fish that definitely is nowhere near a strong argument for commercialisation of space, especially for developing countries. Even in developed countries the huge expensive of such a project could be better directed towards what I like to call refining, recycling and redesigning strategies that seek to improve efficacy, re-usability and dependence.

Mining the moon is a big pet peeve of mine, especially things like He3 proponents. Hint: He3 is a proposed fuel for hypothetical second generation nuclear fusion reactors. So far we are still tackling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER#Timeline_and_current_status" project will start which if they go to plan will give us a viable blueprint for first generation commercial nuclear fussion sometime in the early second half of this century. Proponents of moon-mined He3 for 2nd Gen nuclear fusion don't have much of a leg to stand on in my opinion because they aren't just putting the horse before the cart, they're putting the cart before the wheel (not to mention the elephant in the room that He3 could be bred in dedicated 1st Gen fusion reactors).

Finally what you are talking about is akin to building a huge quarrying and refining industry down the end of a ~400,000km toll road where the cost to travel is upwards of $10,000 per kg. Yes better technology could lower that figure but there is no guarantee that it will, large space based projects take decades and decades and cost billions. Frequently they experience failures and cancellations.

But all this is largely irrelevant because this isn't a discussion about whether or not space science has tangible benefits, it's about whether or not a developing country should invest in space science over it's development. So could we please stick to the topic and only talk about tangible links between space science and development; specifically space science originating from the developing country (e.g. no "GPS helps aid worker" arguments).

 

[cmb]

Proponents of moon-mined He3 for 2nd Gen nuclear fusion don't have much of a leg to stand on in my opinion

...plus that the concentration of ³He in lunar 'deposits' are barely that much more concentrated than the ³He in terrestrial helium deposits.

On Earth the ratio of 3He:4He is ~1:10,000 whereas the lunar regolith (top few m) has a ~1:3,000 ratio of the stuff. Sure, the concentration is higher, but worth going to the Moon for??

³He is extremely useful stuff, mind, independent of future nuclear fusion purposes. There is currently a huge shortage due to failure of oversight on behalf of those who were supposed to be the custodians of such things. I think the going rate for ³He is currently "not available at any commercial price"!

 

[shashankac655]

Mining the moon is a hole different kettle of fish that definitely is nowhere near a strong argument for commercialisation of space,...

The strong argument for commercialization of space in this thread was about satellite launches ,Telemedicine etc and depending more on technology developed on our own and depending less on technology tranfer from other countries and depending less on agriculture.it is what vast majority of ISRO's budget is meant for (benefits)and about that i was talking things that might be 100 years away.

 

[shashankac655]

growing profits

 

[shashankac655]

it's about whether or not a developing country should invest in space science over it's development.

Over it's development, really?

http://laico.org/v2020resource/files/remote_rural_population.htm

space industry

growing profits

W2M
It is a part of it's development not over it's.