India's Mars Orbiter reaches the red planet - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in India.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14470948
What I said is self-evident. It is beyond me why you don’t understand it. You are just repeating your invalid arguments. Here, the last and final time (in short phrases for dummies):


Someone who whines about insults, surely knows how to not throw any, right? But it doesn't matter to me I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy and the irony inherited in your whining about insults, get it?

Also, lol at "me repeating my arguments", if you stop yours and actually countered my arguments, I will not have to repeat myself but it seems once again that you are incapable to do so and here once again you repeated the same nonsense.

development cost = big, manufacturing costs = small
> if you don't have to pay for the development, you save big time
- e.g., heavy lift launcher development 3 to 5 billion, cost of one launch < 100 millions.
> impossible to recoup development cost even with 100 launches, certainly not with half a dozen Isro launches
- If you buy GE or Hughes satellite, the development has already been paid by NASA
- GE makes 50 satellites when Isro makes 2
> GE satellite much cheaper for you: no development cost + economy of scale.
- Isro cannot sell satellites to international customers because GE and Hughes satellite much better.
>> GE satellite much better and far cheaper
>>> Services provided by said satellites much better and far cheaper.


And this is nothing but a huge strawman and another proof for your failure to understand basic things that your opponents are saying.

1. Not all ISRO budget is concerned with development, it includes buying too as you yourself have mentioned. In fact 30% of ISRO's budget is not related to extra terrestrial at all.
2. ISRO does manages to sell her product (once again for the nth fucking time, see Antrix)
3. You don't have to break even through indigenous launches only, see Antrix. Ever heard of a thing called buying and selling?
4. Also most of your points are an exaggeration and its obvious the way you are manipulating things here (as my points show), there is more to your argument that an unbiased analysis.

Consequently, there are no economic benefits and space will always be a cost factor (increasingly) without ever generating any economic benefit for India.


False, stupid repetitions once again, already rebutted. Try refuting my points in my first reply to you first but you obviously can't.

You quote a false figure without context. This is the usual spin every space agency in the world uses to fool the public and get a bigger share of the national budget.


I get it, it wasn't an honest mistake but you were outright lying in last post as in this (as same honest mistake can't be done in straight two posts).

Here, I quoted a correct figure (why don't you cite your own figure?) in a bid to refute a specific point of yours, it was not meant to be a comparison or anything like that with other countries and of course I refuted your point with that figure (my point being that the ISRO budget is a drop in proverbial ocean) but it seems that when utterly unable to further pursue that line of argument, you twisted that figure and used in a completely different context while accusing me of spinning. Its more disgusting than any insults anyone can throw. Try to do better.

But still let's put the numbers in the context where you want them right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Union_budget_of_India

Total Expenditure = 270 billion USD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Space_Research_Organisation

Total Budget = 1.1 billion USD

Can you calculate it? If yes, then you will arrive at the answer which will tell you that budget for ISRO is nothing but a pittance and now that you have been proven once again wrong, will you either a) concede the point or b) argue with my argument or as usual choose c) and repeat yourself while ignoring everything?

And if you have 1.3 billion (or more like 2 billion if you add space related funds from other ministries including Earth Sciences and Defense) a year, you have an awful lot of money spent without any economic benefit whatsoever. The cost will increase, but there will never be any economic benefit.
Thus, it is not true that space development is cheap or economically beneficial for India.


Wrong, see my first reply which you are yet to rebut, making stupid speculations is not an argument in order to conclude anything and this post of yours is nothing but another speculation backed up by nothing.

I didn't say you have to scrap Isro (even though it’s a bureaucratic monster, but that's your business)


You have been implying that from start by rhetoric of "oh that money should be spend elsewhere", don't backtrack now.

I said space development has no economic benefit for India (see A) above). If you want to pursue it anyways, that's fine, but don't pretend there is any economic benefit.


False and already been rebutted countless time, I am yet to see any rebuttal of my first reply to you listing the countless benefits to which you haven't provided one single counter argument.

Space Program has been indeed greatly beneficial for the country.

You continue with your insults, even though you are incapable of understanding the most basic of facts.


The fucking irony. Seriously stop whining about insults, see pot and Kettle.

I never said that India will be rich by scrapping space.


Obviously you implied that and more than once as anyone can see I have been asking again and again why make such a big case over an amount of money that's so minuscule (no reply has been provided yet btw). Your case is filled with rhetorics like :

India falling behind, Hundreds of million poor and many other such examples

as if all these problem can be solved by scrapping ISRO and hence the question, why bring all these problems if you think (to which you are admitting now only) it won't have much impact overall?

Another unfounded personal insinuation. You quote an arbitrary assertion about me from an internet persona you don’t know and who very obviously doesn’t know me. Why am I Sinophile?

What has that got to do with anything?


Why am I Indophobe by pointing out the fact that it would be more advantageous for India to use very limited resources to develop economically beneficial programs instead of wasting that money?


There's no fact in your argument just denial and repetitions and that is exactly why I asserted you are either of the two. But I will admit that I shouldn't have posted this as it doesn't really matter either if you are one of those or not, hence apologies for it.

No, everybody in the industry knows this perfectly well. The same applies to India.


And here we go with self boasting again, it literally took me less than a minute to find an article from the industry with positive views for this mission.



Your habit of denying every single phrase with unfounded arbitrary assertions spiced with polemics is not conductive to a constructive discussion. If you want to elicit a reply from me, I suggest you keep it factual and skip your derisory and insulting language and stop making unfounded personal insinuations, because I don't even read such posts. Your polemics are a momentous waste of time.


Look, don't try to climb the ladder of self righteousness, usually I don't cry foul about it but you had more than your share of insults and polemics while its once again ironical to see someone who has posted any facts for the first time in this very last post whilst my every single post is filled with facts, most of which you chose to ignore.

Your habit of actually ignoring any counter arguments in order to just repeat yourself (even after I am asking again and again to respond to my particular arguments) is rather tedious and dishonest, try rectifying those before going on a lecture spree.

Oh and people (including me) who generally get bored or enough of a thread leave that thread without making a big fuss in order to save face but its also one of those very old debating trick as if it helps.
#14470990
BTW the US had millions in poverty whilst racing to the moon and beyond. The UK had slums without inside toilets or bathrooms as late as the early 70's. Didnt stop the high end development
.

Let me get this right. You have somehow concluded that if we did not have a space program the money would immediately go to fighting poverty? I don't think so.
#14471022
Drlee wrote:Let me get this right. You have somehow concluded that if we did not have a space program the money would immediately go to fighting poverty? I don't think so.


I have lost count how many time this point has already been mentioned without getting any answer from Atlantis at all i.e. how the hell if we scrap space program, the money will automatically translate into fighting poverty or any other problem?




Moving on as in one last ditch attempt, as far I see Atlantis has two different line of arguments :

1. India has *insert any arbitrary problem* and still launches things in space. Which is frankly, this whole line of argument is utter nonsense and doesn't even deserve a discussion but still :

a) No one has yet provided any corelation let alone any causation between any of the said problem and Space program.

b) As Drlee said scrapping space program != money going to fight those said problems.

c) Space program has actually helped India in many of her problems including poverty.

There's much more to it and Atlantis while pursuing this line of argument has never actually answered a single counter question or continuously pursued any of his points but instead it was a series of tedious repetition. I am not even going to engage this sort of idiotic arguments anymore, so next.

2. Admittedly this second line of argument does have merit albeit I disagree with the premise and conclusion but still its a good debating point unlike point 1, it is basically that Indian space program can be more efficient (financially) by scraping her budget of R & D and becoming a buyer for all her needs in international market while pursuing much modest objectives. Here are my contentions :

a) I am yet to see any conclusive proof backed by data that it will be more efficient, all I have seen is theories and future speculations.

b) As it stands, the budget for ISRO is too small to make any substantial impact if we scrap the R & D from ISRO. Let's breakdown the numbers to get an idea :

ISRO budget is 1.1 billion USD of which more than 30% goes to non space related areas like research in water management, waste disposal etc, more than 20% of ISRO budget is equivalent to annual turnover of her marketing arm Antrix and if we follow Atlantis path, Antrix will not exist hence the subtraction. That lefts us with something around 550 million USD for ISRO and her space related programs but ISRO will still need to buy stuff from foreign players while some money will be needed for salaries and maintenance. I am not sure how much further could be subtracted from that 550 million USD but still one gets the idea.

That is even if we accept Atlantis premise, the amount saved is so minuscule that it will have a very little to no impact in the overall picture, hence I can't understand the three page of passionate arguments.

c) At one hand Atlantis seems to be worried about lack of research in India specially compared to other countries but at the same time he wants to dismantle a program of research, a contradiction that I can't understand. The only point that seems to exist here is that there are more critical technological areas where India should pay attention to and as I already had said, I agree but then the argument should be that India needs to funnel more funds towards this area and not that India should scrap her space program, it makes no sense. There are many more avenues to get the required funding from, why not explore those?

d) Financial viability isn't everything, see Drlee's posts in the last page.

e) It furthers the "financial viability isn't everything" argument as in that scientific knowledge should be pursued too. For example as already posted lunar water was discovered by Indian Space program, more the eyes up there, better it is.

f) Then, there's also the point that one should not get too lagged behind or completely dependent on foreign nations in critical fields (which imo does includes space) in long term, of course you can say that India is still much behind and also in other sectors too and I will agree but how that translates into if you are too behind just quit the race?

That will be all for now, but before leaving a final point i.e. passionate arguments over such a tiny amount of money as if it could bring doom and gloom on its own is ridiculous, yes you do that Atlantis. Remember your argument, "space program is a great way of ruining the country"?

Seriously when you have to use such ridiculous hyperboles, you must know that you are standing on some very loose grounds.
#14471278
mikema63 wrote:I don't get this rabid opposition to space exploration. The US NASA budget is 0.6% of the total budget, Fuser has already pointed out how much India's space budget takes out. The space agency that represents all of europe is a mere $5.5 billion USD. China is spending 1.3 billion USD


I'm not opposed to space exploration, Mike, 'rabid' or otherwise. And as we all know - figures can be made to say what anyone wants them to say - and you can edit Wiki to back it up if you so wish? ; 20.9 billion USDs might be a 'drop in the bucket' to you, but those who might benefit if it was used for primary health care in the USA might ponder which is the more virtuous use of it?

Now I know I've said the following ad nauseam, but 'cosmology' must be the only profession whose members make a very lucrative living from wild speculation accompanied by a flamboyant imagination to put across intangible and non-provable self-serving information supported by CGI with truly estimable articulation. So don't shoot the messenger mate. Image I also know that unjustified credibility is given to outrageous claims and guesses publicised by NASA et al, and it will obviously be extremely difficult for anyone who has been duped for so long to accept they might have had it wrong all this time, so will put up a spirited defence to spare themselves embarrassment?
#14471325
If the space program is holding back Indian poverty, why doesn't India close down its embassies, shut down any state media and other so-called "non-essential" services? The reasons for Indian poverty are more complex and multi-faceted than spending money on the space programme. Ditching the space programme will not fix India's economy and society, the very things that make it possible for India to have its own space programme in the first place.

Britain was a world leader in scientific innovation during the 19th century and it didn't help reduce the destitution in the country.
#14471676
Drlee wrote:
Let me get this right. You have somehow concluded that if we did not have a space program the money would immediately go to fighting poverty? I don't think so.


Perhaps I was a bit unclear. I was making the exact opposite argument.

These types of high end ventures are important to the development of the nation as a whole. People who object to it fear India's development.

That is impossible. Most nukes nowadays use SLBMs[…]

Left vs right, masculine vs feminine

Joe Stalin: "Mommy loves you!" Abusiv[…]

Theism vs Atheism

It's pointless to bother debating theism vs atheis[…]

Finland's Jewish Soldiers in WWII

Germany was actually very horrified and indeed thr[…]