ISRO: A lesson for Pakistan.

[karan.1970]

How else would you distinguish a drama queen.....our Karan takes the lead in the field.

"personal attacks ... etc.. etc... "

 

[Hope Loust II]

........ Proportion of stunted children in countries surveyed: Pakistan 42% (10.1M) of children stunted, Bangladesh 43% (7M), India 48% (60.5M), Nigeria 43% (10.9M), Peru 24% (712,560).............

This sounds about right, as it is related to what World Bank is reporting---

 

[karan.1970]

It only exists only in imagination. Here's the real data from 2012 Save the Children survey:

From the same report

Pakistan 2nd worst country in terms of acceptable diet for kids below 2 years.. India even in 2005 was better (7%) than Pakistan in 2011 (4%)

 

[Hope Loust II]

It's an indictment of HDI which puts a nation with higher poverty, greater hunger and worse sanitation higher than its neighbors......

First they got rid of Dr. Abdus Salam and denigrated all his important Nobel-prize winning work.

Now they are going about denigrating the hard-work of Pakistan's most famous Economist by ridiculing his salient achievement in developing the HDI itself:

Mahbub ul Haq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is there no end to this? Why are Pakistanis always trying to drag down the achievements of other fellow-Pakistanis? Is Jealousy a culturally acceptable thing in Pakistan?

 

[My-Analogous]

even after all this you cant understand eh?
maximum payload even an ICBM like agni 5 can take to space is 50 kg(LEO)
India have capability to send 5 tonnes to LEO...
and it will be increased to 10 tonnes this year........
we also have worlds third largest rocket booster ...
and still you think your missiles are better than India???

The reason of Indian success is because India have an hands of Russia, whereas Pakistan don't have such luxuries.

 

[nForce]

The reason of Indian success is because India have an hands of Russia, whereas Pakistan don't have such luxuries.

You are ill informed...While you are correct that India was getting help from the Soviets,you overlook that at the same time Pakistan was being helped by the US,who had the technical upper edge over the Soviets.But Pakistan was mostly concerned with getting military technology and materials from US and even more so during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.In the mean time,we were taking help from the Soviets in building our iron and steel plants.

You see,its all a matter of priority and planning.Its not like you did not have any options.There is always an option,its all about which one you choose.

 

[kṣamā]

ppl fail to realize that no one helped those big boys. And for a sustained and self reliance one needs to be self reliant. ISRO started after her sister organization in pak even then surpasses it by leaps and bounds. Every one will speculate we are painting US USSR rockets and sending them to space, but fact is ISRO has become one stop destination for many countries for small - mid weight sat launches. And it has emerged as expert in PSLV/GSLV launches by indigenous vehicles.

 

[nForce]

This is how they started.....

This is how they dong it now

 

[Mitro]

The reason of Indian success is because India have an hands of Russia, whereas Pakistan don't have such luxuries.

here you go bro

U.S. Missile Nonproliferation Policy and India’s Path to an ICBM Capability Richard Speier
The path to India’s ICBM capability has spanned more than four decades and is largely based on space-launch vehicle technology obtained from foreign sources. The United States has taken measures over the last several decades to restrict missile proliferation, but the policies took effect only after India’s missile program had begun. Moreover, U.S. nonproliferation policy has also not been consistently applied, particularly in India’s case. Indeed, the relationship between space launch vehicles and missile proliferation seems to have been obscured.

1960s: NASA trains Indian scientists at Wallops Island, Virginia, in sounding rockets and provides Nike-Apache sounding rockets to India.[1] France, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union also supply sounding rockets.[2]
1963-1964: A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, an Indian engineer, works at Wallops Island, where the Scout space-launch vehicle (an adaptation of Minuteman ICBM solid-fuel rocket technology) is flown.[3]

1965: Following Kalam’s return to India, the Indian Atomic Energy Commission requests U.S. assistance with the Scout, and NASA provides unclassified reports.[4]

1969-1970: U.S. firms supply equipment for the Solid Propellant Space Booster Plant at Sriharikota.[5]

1970s: Kalam becomes head of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), in charge of developing space launch vehicles. During the same time period, the United States begins to consider a broad policy against missile proliferation.
May 1974: India conducts a “peaceful nuclear explosion.”
1980s: The United States and its six economic sum mit partners secretly negotiate the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). After one and a half years of difficult negotiations on the question of space launch vehicles, all partners agree that they must be treated as restrictively as ballistic missiles because their hardware, technology, and production facilities are interchangeable. The MTCR is informally implemented in 1985 and is publicly announced in 1987.
July 1980: India launches its first satellite with the SLV-3 rocket, a close copy of the NASA Scout.[6]
February 1982: Kalam becomes head of the Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), in charge of adapting space-launch vehicle technology to ballistic missiles.
May 1989: India launches its first Agni “technology demonstrator” surface-to-surface missile. The Agni’s first stage is essentially the first stage of the SLV-3. Later, the Agni becomes a family of three short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.[7]
1990: The United States enacts a sanctions law against missile proliferation. Two weeks later, the Soviet Union agrees to supply India with cryogenic upper-stage rockets and technology, and the two parties become the first countries sanctioned under the new U.S. law.[8]
1993: The United States lifts sanctions on Russia after Moscow agrees to limit the transfer to a small number of rocket engines and not production technology.[9]
1994: India launches the Polar Space Launch Ve hicle (PSLV). Stages 1 and 3 are 2.8-meter-diameter solid-fuel rockets. Stages 2 and 4 are liquid-fuel Vikas engines derived from 1980s French technology transfers.
The earliest reported date for when the Surya ICBM program, using PSLV technology, is said to have been officially authorized. However, India’s space and missile en gineers, if not the “official” Indian government, had opened the option much earlier.
May 1998: India tests nuclear weapons after decades of protesting that its nuclear program was exclu sively peaceful. The United States imposes broad sanctions on nuclear- and missile/space-related transfers.
April 1999: India launches the Agni II, an extended range missile that tests re-entry vehicle “technology [that] can be integrated with the PSLV programme to create an ICBM” according to a defense ministry official.[10]
Kalam quoted in Jane’s Defence Weekly that he wants to “neutralise” the “stranglehold” some nations have through the MTCR, which had tried but failed to “throttle” India’s missile program. “I would like to devalue missiles by selling the technology to many nations and break their stranglehold.”[11]
May 1999: Defense News cites DRDO officials as stating that the Surya is under development.[12]
November 1999
India ‘s minister of state for defense (and former head of DRDO), Bachi Singh Rawat, says India is developing an ICBM known as Surya that would “have a range of up to” 5,000 kilometers. A little more than two weeks later, Rawat is reportedly stripped of his portfolio because of his disclosure.[13]
2000s
April 2001: Khrunichev State Space Science and Pro duction Center announces that it will supply five more cryogenic upper stages to India within the next three years.[14]
September 2001
The United States lifts many of the technology sanctions it imposed in 1998. Subsequently, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visits the United States amid agreement to broaden the technology dialogue.
December 2001: A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate states, ” India could convert its polar space launch vehicle into an ICBM within a year or two of a decision to do so.”[15]
July 2002: Kalam becomes president of India.
September 2002: The United States tells India it will not object to India launching foreign satellites as long as they do not contain U.S.-origin components.[16]
April 2003: The last mention of India as a proliferator or a supplier to proliferators is made in the director of central intelligence’s unclassified semi-annual report to Congress on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.[17]
January 2004: President George W. Bush agrees to expand cooperation with India in “civilian space programs” but not explicitly to cooperate with space launches. This measure is part of a bilateral initiative dubbed “Next Steps in Strategic Partnership.”[18]
October 2004
A Russian Academy of Sciences deputy director reportedly states that India is planning to increase the range of the Agni missile to 5,000 kilometers and to design the Surya ICBM with a range of 8,000-12,000 kilometers.[19]
July 2005: Bush agrees to cooperate with India on “satellite navigation and launch,” and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agrees to “adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime…guidelines.”[20]
August 2005: According to Indian Ministry of Defense sources, there are plans to use the noncryogenic Vikas stage for the Surya and to have the missile deliver a 2.5-3.5-metric-ton payload with two or three warheads with explosive yields of 15-20 kilotons.[21]

 

[Hope Loust II]

No offense, but India can't even build a jet engine, I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that India made a rocket engine before a jet engine.

1) Rocket engines (not cryogenic ones, just regular solid & liquid fuel ones) have been around a lot longer than Jet engines. Jet engines are more complex and difficult to make than regular Rocket engines.

If you meant specifically "cryogenic rocket engines" when you said "rocket engines", then:

2) There are no international restrictions on transfer or sale jet engines. Anyone can buy them at any time from France, Russia, US, Canada, UK. However, there are severe restrictions on international sale or transfer of cryogenic rocket engines. So people who want cryogenic rocket engines have no choice but to build their own.

Note that even China still does not have a reliable jet engines and continues to use Russian-made ones; whereas China makes its own cryogenic rocket engines on "high-priority" basis as it is not available from outside.

Hope that clarifies the situation.

Glad to be back.

 

[Hope Loust II]

Nope, alot of people have talent. Im sure lots of slum dwellers in India have talent.. Indian govt just needs to give them a better life. Too bad India is a open air shithole and the worlds rape capital. On top of that, 5000 innocent children die everyday in India thanks to your poverty. Thanks for killing 5000 children everyday. Are you proud of it??

What you say may be true for military rocket programs under certain circumstances, but it is not true for civilian launcher & satellite programs.

A country needs to atleast feed 70% of its population before thinking of wasting money on space programs and military. It can go both ways, son.

1) Even if a country like India eliminates its entire space program, it will not make a dent in the social issues of poverty. The question is one of scale. The entire space program in India & China is probably 1-5 Billion$ a year (India at lower end and China at higher end). So it is about 1$ per person per year and eliminating it will not make any difference whatsoever; most likely this sum would have been lost in all the corruption & inefficiencies of their subsidies-for-the-poor program.

2) Most space programs pay for themselves. A country without a space program will have to either use another country's satellite systems (weather, agriculture, communication et cetera) or have another country launch an imported satellite. These recurring current account costs turn out to be more expensive in the long run than learning to do it yourself. For countries of the size of India and China, their space programs actually generate a profit in terms of positive externalities for their countries.

However, for a smaller country like Pakistan, you are correct, that it might not be cost-effective to have its own space program. It may be more efficient to pay China to use their and let them make a profit.....

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Yeah sure, everyone just totally helped India build up it's space capability.

 

[gslv mk3]