CC1981 Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Blah blah blah... I see your allergy to logic and facts is strong as ever. Carry on. The project has cost around 2 per cent of ISRO's annual budget and only marginally more than what it earns through satellite launches. Where is that number from ? I highly doubt 83 million dollars is 2% of ISRO's annual budget- that'd put ISRO's annual budget to 400 million dollar plus per year ? Ie, ISRO's budget is 10 times the entire defence budget of India ? Riiight...I got a bridge to sell you- interested ?? Besides, i don't care if its 2% of the budget or 1% - its still bloody waste and only people who think its worthwile are insecure folks who feel the urge to chest-thump about 'technology and prowess' in the most hollow sense of those words!
CC1981 Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 By the way, you seriously need to sort out your maths! You said the cost was 2% of ISRO's budget...the article quoted the budget for Chandrayaaan to be 83 million. If 2% is 83 million, then 1% is (roughly) 42 million....then 100% is ??.....Dude, next time, get a calculator. It's laughable to say that China's mission is justified and India's is not because the former is relatively well off. China is still a p1ss poor country with a massive urban-rural divide. No, it isnt laughable at all. China is poor by western standards- China is far richer than India however - both in terms of how much poor population they have ( they have THREE TIMES less people in poverty than in India, their middle class is far bigger), how well their economy is doing and what their foreign currency reserve is. China launched its space program 30 years after their economic boom started...we've done it in less than 15...that isnt a case of pride, its a case of shame, how we'll put these meaningless show-off things over people's lives...China may be despotic, curb free speech and have strong social conformity- but China still cares more about its average citizens than India does.
triam Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 83 mill for a moon mission seems too low to me. People who know better can verify that, is that all it takes to launch whatever to moon?
CC1981 Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Damn right...100% is? 400 million as you said above? LOL, atleast admit that you made an ass out of yourself One of these days, you should either take a reading test or TOEFL. This is what i said: that'd put ISRO's annual budget to 400 million dollar plus per year ? Maybe, after you actually learn the language, you will understand the nuance of ballparking. Also, 400 million is 10 times India's defence budget? Roughly speaking, yes. blah blah blah.... Good to see great logic from you again, star. Whether you like it or not, this is a total white elephant project- ideally suited for insecure idjits like you, while half our nation starves and the rest of the world percieves us as gloryhunting lunatics who'd aim for the moon despite having half the country - or around 1/12 of the entire world's population in abject poverty. Kind of like your dad buying a Porsche but doesnt care about buying clothes for you guys...
coffee_rules Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 You said the cost was 2% of ISRO's budget...the article quoted the budget for Chandrayaaan to be 83 million. If 2% is 83 million, then 1% is (roughly) 42 million....then 100% is ??.....Dude, next time, get a calculator. 83/x = 0.02 x=83/0.02 x=83 * 100/2 x=4100 million whiich 4.1 bil.
punjabi_khota Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 Sukhoi 32 bomber costs $32 million. We will be in serious trouble if we buy one and all we have is some spare change after that.:hysterical:
Lurker Posted October 8, 2008 Posted October 8, 2008 What the hell is there to conquer on the moon ? Why is it important to plop a flag on a piece of rock circling this planet ? I am a technology-inclined dood' date=' so tell me- what the phuck is the techological 'barrier' to putting a dude on the moon that can't be achieved in the near-earth orbit (ie, satellite/space station distance) ??[/quote'] Hmmm hell, plop, phuck...enough substance in the argument I say. To conquer moon is a perfect hallmark of a country's space programme coming of age.Even if we don't consider the technological benefits, research, scientific enthusiasm etc etc, the least you can do is think of the impact it has on countries that want to send their own rockets in space but do not have the technology, or the time. Do I need to refresh as to how other countries, including developed ones, have reached out to ISRO to shoot their satellites in space?? Can you not imagine them trying to reach to moon and in process taking India's experience in this regards? xxx
Ram Posted October 8, 2008 Author Posted October 8, 2008 83 mill for a moon mission seems too low to me. People who know better can verify that' date=' is that all it takes to launch whatever to moon?[/quote'] We are only sending an orbiter to the moon, not a moon landing mission, which is prohibitively expensive. If you want a satellite to say orbit the moon, all you have to do is to launch it like any other geosynchronous satellite, use all the launch vehicle ( in this case, the PSLV) fuel to take to a height and from then on, perform a series of orbit transfer manouvres by firing the small thrusters that are there in the satellite. When you do that, the satellites apogee and perigee will change, as illustrated in this diagram To give you a simplistic assumption, the PSLV launch vehicle will take the satellite only upto orbit 1. Once the satellite is in geosynchronous transfer orbit 1, its inbuilt thrusters will fire to give the satellite a velocity of Del V, and its transferred to the elliptical orbit 2. At a certain point in orbit 2, its thrusters are fired again with a velocity of Del 2, to transfer it to geosynchronous transfer orbit 3, which, as you can see is much bigger. Like this, a series of complex orbit transfer steps are performed until the satellite is within the gravitational pull of the moon, from then on, another entirely new series of complex orbit transfers are done to make the satellite settle into a circular or elliptical orbit around the moon. So, in effect, we're arent actually 'taking' the satellite to the moon. We will only use the on-board satellite thrusters and the earth's and moon's gravitational pull to get it to where we want.
CC1981 Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 83/x = 0.02 x=83/0.02 x=83 * 100/2 x=4100 million whiich 4.1 bil. Moral of the story : posting at 2am in the morning is terrible for significant figures and a zero or two can be lopped off here or there. I stand corrected! :haha:
CC1981 Posted October 9, 2008 Posted October 9, 2008 To conquer moon is a perfect hallmark of a country's space programme coming of age. Thats pure showboating, not the science that is talking. Even if we don't consider the technological benefits, research, scientific enthusiasm etc etc, the least you can do is think of the impact it has on countries that want to send their own rockets in space but do not have the technology, or the time. Yeah...they too will think its 'cool' to blow money on a pure showboating project with zero technological,research and scientific benifit while half their population starves. Think for a minute what this project is doing - the thrust of your argument is 'it looks glamorous' and that exactly is my ****ing point : to be glamorous when you are broke is called being a poser...a fraud, a fake.. That is true for a person who will buy louis vuitton designer clothes and attend trendy nightclubs while wondering how the hell to pay rent next month- that is also true for a nation. It may impress other ignoramous nations with confidence/identity criseses but for nations who's identity is secure, it will further demonstrate the hollowness of our society, where blowing money for these glamorous projects come before uplifting more than half the nation from abject poverty. Do I need to refresh as to how other countries, including developed ones, have reached out to ISRO to shoot their satellites in space?? Do i need to refresh you on the fact that ISRO's reputation and burgeoning slice of the market pie in launching satellites and other space-based research stuff is NOT dependent on silly show-offy missions like these but on the actual scientific and economic edge we represent in these matters ? Think for a minute- do you really think that Japan or Korea or Brazil lack the technological expertese to launch satellites to reach the moon ? If you think so, then you arnt aware of their technological prowess. Just that those nations are less keen to show-boat on an utterly meaningless white elephant project. And atleast, their people are better off than ours if they are blowing money on something that is a complete glamour project. This project doesnt only irk me, it actually makes me respect India/Indian society a bit less.
kablooee87 Posted October 21, 2008 Posted October 21, 2008 The launch is scheduled for 6:50 am local time. That's less than 2 hours from now. Here's a link to the live webcast: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/videos/introduction.htm
varun Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 The launch is scheduled for 6:50 am local time. That's less than 2 hours from now. Here's a link to the live webcast: http://www.isro.org/pslv-c11/videos/introduction.htm Ooh nice, thanks !
varun Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 That link isnt workin! works for me (FF on windows). Try IE
Ram Posted October 22, 2008 Author Posted October 22, 2008 Works in IE for me. Darn, its buffering big time though.
Cricketics Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 its going in 10 minutes.. DUS BAHANE KARKE LEGAYE DIL
Mr. Wicket Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 What the hell is there to conquer on the moon ? Why is it important to plop a flag on a piece of rock circling this planet ? I am a technology-inclined dood' date=' so tell me- what the phuck is the techological 'barrier' to putting a dude on the moon that can't be achieved in the near-earth orbit (ie, satellite/space station distance) ??[/quote'] Have you ever played the modern/nuclear version of Risk? Anyone who's played that knows the importance of getting to the moon! (Space commander + Nuclear commander + Diplomat = FUN)
beetle Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 Chandrayaan-I launched successfully 22 Oct 2008, 0628 hrs IST, PTI : SRIHARIKOTA: Chandrayaan-1, India's maiden moon spacecraft, was on Wednesday put into Transfer Orbit around the earth by the Polar Launch VehiMoon Mission: Chandrayaan-1 (TOI Photo) 19 minutes after it blasted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre here. The 1,380 kg Chandrayaan-1, carrying 11 payloads, was released into a Tansfer Orbit at a perigee (nearest point to earth) of about 250 km and apogee (farthest point from the earth) of about 23,000 km, 18.2 minutes after the PSLV-C11 blasted off as the scientists broke into jubilation at the mission control centre. After a series of procedures over the next two weeks, the spacecraft would reach its desired Lunar orbit and placed at a height of 100 km from the Lunar surface, marking the operational phase of the mission which would put India in the elite lunar club. Earlier, at the end of the 49-hour countdown, the 44.4 meter tall four-stage PSLV-11 lifted off from the second launch pad into a cloudy sky. This is the 14th flight of ISRO's workhorse PSLV, which had launched 29 satellites into a variety of orbits since 1993, and 13th successive one in a row. Chandrayaan-1 is carrying 11 payloads, five entirely designed and developed in India, three from European Space Agency, one from Bulgaria and two from US, which would explore the Moon over the next two years. :two_thumbs_up::isalute:
Recommended Posts