9 ms·
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-h
by lewisjoe 7y ago
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 engines and cars, which in turn improved the economy overall.
- godelski 7y agoTldr: working on any difficult problem causes you to learn things. That knowledge can be used for much more than that original difficult problem.
- easytiger 7y agoExcept the country already acquired all that via globalisation. This isn't 1952. There are few walls up on many technologies. India has acquired most of its know-how by undercutting developed nations and getting them to teach them how to do the work.
- suyash 7y agoLol, you must be joking, in fact it's the opposite. It's majority of Indians who are doing cutting edge research and innovating just look at what's going on any day in Silicon Valley or any top Universities. Now they are starting to do the same in their country while being creative with lost cost solutions.
- mruts 7y agoYou’re saying it’s Indians that are doing the majority (>%50) of cutting edge research? That’s just not true, even in the slightest.
- shripadk 7y agohttp://www.forbesindia.com/article/innovation-special/18-indian-minds-who-are-doing-cutting-edge-work/32312/4 http://www.forbesindia.com/article/innovation-special/18-ind... EDIT: Since Hacker News won't allow me to post a reply. I am editing this post here. You misunderstood what he said. He said that "majority of Indians" are doing cutting-edge research in foreign Universities. Not "majority of cutting-edge research" are being done by Indians. Both have different meanings. Most Indians who travel to foreign countries get higher education grants/fellowships to work on cutting-edge research. Very few Indians actually travel for undergraduate courses. India has prestigious universities like IITs/NITs which are equal to and in some cases better than Western counterparts. The reason why Indians travel to Western countries for research is because of lack of research grants to carry out Scientific experiments that might run into many millions/billions of dollars. In other words, this is brain drain at its finest.
- mruts 7y agoDid you read what I said? An article from "Forbes India" about how there's 18 Indians doing cutting edge research is not related to what I said.
- easytiger 7y agoAnd the acquisition of those skill sets come from the west working with them. Science isn't a closed shop anymore.
- sanxiyn 7y agoSome knowledge only can be learned by doing. Also, space technology is, due to its close tie to missile technology, one of those few modern technologies with walls up.
- easytiger 7y agoWhat are you talking about? India has Nuclear weapons and self made 12k km range ICBMs already
- jvanderbot 7y ago"Walls up" "Self made" Exactly.
- sanxiyn 7y agoIndia didn't acquire launch technology "via globalisation". In fact, when India attempted technology transfer from Russia, US objected citing Missile Technology Control Regime, and India had to develop their own.
- easytiger 7y agoYea. They basically went back to first principles on relativity I hear. They had nothing to go on. No well understood science in the public domain at all. And the objection was around the seeker technology more specifically
- denzil_correa 7y agoUSA has developed most of its business income/value by exploiting purchasing power capita of nations like India and China. It works both ways.
- lewisjoe 7y agoIs it? Agriculture is the country’s major occupation, yet it imports rice polishing machines from switzerland. Indian market is one of the fastest growing smartphone market. Yet the biggest players are Chinese, Korean or American. Railways has been the primary source of connection across the country and within cities. Yet metro trains are made by Japan and european companies. In the cities IT services are the main source of economy, yet India never shipped its own microprocessor until very recently. I can go on, but you get the point. Having a vague idea of how to do something vs shipping a world class product are two different things. What’s happening with the moon mission is the latter, though at a very beginning stage.
- easytiger 7y agoThe UK used to know build how to most those things, indeed invented them; they now buy them from abroad. Globalisation and the economics thereof dictate that. India to some degree skipped a step on the way. Much like central and rural African countries skipping broadband and going straight to mobile internet.
- lewisjoe 7y agoYes. UK’s biggest company is not a train engine company. UK learned that it could generate far more revenue by selling financial services with its rich legacy along that line, than export train engines that it invented. India took a similar path in 90s, selling IT services. But it isn’t simply enough given the size and the population of the country. The only sustainable way forward is to become strong exporters of good products along with services.
- mindfulplay 7y agoA lot of developed nations are piggybacking on the educated, talented people from India. It's only fair India got its fair share back. More importantly, corruption and backstabbing has so far ruined such talent, spilling into developed nations; so if there is a somewhat level playing field being established through ISRO and via Indian startups for Indians, then that's a great start.
- detcader 7y agoI like the first sentence, but what's "like that" doing in there?
- perseusprime11 7y agoCheck out this link. As it suggests, they can work on many things in parallel. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-million-people-out-of-poverty-in-10-years-un/article28397694.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
- astazangasta 7y agoSpace enthusiasts are always trying to sell their fetish with this line, but the fact is that technology development is not some generic facility; if you develop technology devoted to getting things up into orbit, it will basically give you the expertise to do that. It doesn't, say, develop your semiconductor design, biochemistry, medicine, agriculture, or whatever else your country might need. It basically helps you build weapons, the main reason people get so excited about rocketry. This is the last thing India needs.
- ip26 7y agoFWIW, the very first application & customer for semiconductors was guided missiles. Literally what got the industry started.
- astazangasta 7y agoMost industries get their start in the military because that is where the money always is; however, semiconductors have definitely moved on to other applications, whereas rocketry remains mostly about making missiles.
- dahart 7y agoI wish this comment was less baited. If your argument is true and strong, then you don’t need to dismiss it as fan behavior or call it a fetish. Your argument is also demonstrably weak. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
- astazangasta 7y agoYeah, where would we be without LASIK? I'll also note that that article notably elides things like ICBMs and the other myriad military applications, since it is clearly intended as a puff piece to make us view space technologies as benevolent and positive. As for my tone, perhaps you are right that I don't need to employ ridicule; but I wish to, because I feel contempt for this position so strongly I want to make it known. Space fetishism is a diversion that exists to bilk engineers into careers and positions that are in aid of the military.
- Chathamization 7y agoThis reminds me of the excuses for spending billions of dollars hosting the Olympics. "All the infrastructure improvements will help the locals!" Well, yes, but if infrastructure is your goal there are a lot less costly ways to go about it. I'm sure a country that decided to build an underwater amusement park would end up acquiring some technical know-how on engineering, but that doesn't make that a practical goal.
- javagram 7y agoA lot of Olympic infrastructure is wasted since it involves stuff like building stadiums that are then unused after the Olympics. Investment for an Olympics-type event can be useful if it results in the creation of durable multipurpose infrastructure like transit lines though. The US Space Race helped us become a leader in satellite launch, which is a productive industry on its own terms now. Weather satellites, GPS, telecoms all benefit from it and provide tangible benefits to the population. I’m not sure if Indian investment in space is more toward the useless or useful side of the spectrum though.
- sanxiyn 7y agoUS Space Race was toward the useless side, given that GPS or comsat do not require human spaceflight. Soviet Union was more sensible.
- mopsi 7y agoThere's more than GPS. Human spaceflight has produced many valuable non-invasive wearable biomedical devices because sending up a doctor to monitor the astronaut was not an option. NASA research into nutrition has given us better infant formulas. Research into protection of astronauts' eyes has lead to UV-blocking sunglasses. Etc etc.
- javagram 7y agoNot sure, the Soviets also put men in space, did MIR, and they tried to go to the moon and build a space shuttle too, just failed at it. The thing that I do wonder is when a country like India is just replicating the work already done by the USA, how much of the innovation / potential has already been tapped. (Or now with the USA return to the moon program, is developing Orion and SLS and the gateway really going to do much that the Apollo program didn’t?)
- tanakachen 7y agoI respect your perspective, but based on your answer I’m assuming you are not living in poverty?
- bufferoverflow 7y agoNeither are you.
- kmallen 7y agoI think the poster's point was that NONE of us here are poor, hence this is a very different discussion than if we involved that poor part of the population. Not only is the poor fraction of the population huge, they would also have a very different take on whether the space program is worth it.
- wornohaulus 7y agoThe poor are not paying taxes. Their opinions don't mean jack shit.
- shripadk 7y agoThe poor aren't paying taxes in India. They are exempted from paying any tax. Taxation in India only begins if you are in the lower middle class. And even then, you only start by paying 5% Income Tax. If you take in deductions you can also be tax free for upto 7.5 lakhs (almost 10,000 USD). India's Per Capita Income is 7000 USD (4.8 lakhs). On the other hand, India has already lifted 271 million people out of poverty in 10 years [1]. Can you name a single country that has achieved this feat in such a short span of time? [1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-million-people-out-of-poverty-in-10-years-un/article28397694.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
- rjf72 7y agoComputers 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 computers to them revolutionizing our entire species happened in less than a single human lifetime. And I see no reason to expect anything different with space. Developing the technology to sustainably colonize other planets will bring opportunities that we cannot even imagine today. And I think we can all see such things, but it's easy to get mind-locked in the drama of the present while forgetting about the longer path that we are already set well upon. It is interesting to consider that the saying "When a wise man points to the moon, the fool examines the finger." is, itself, many centuries old.
- sanxiyn 7y agoI 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?
- meruru 7y agoThat's an interesting question. Why aren't we? I figure we basically already have technology-wise so there's not any research left to do and we have no reason to actually move there yet.
- londons_explore 7y agoWe (foolishly in my opinion) signed treaties which made Antarctica a research-only continent. Imagine if we had done the same to North America - the world might have never developed most of today's technology.
- 7y ago
- scotchmi_st 7y agoThe 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 developing nations". Or defense for that matter. Hell, you hardly even hear people say that about other, dubiously cost-effective science projects like the LHC.
- sanxiyn 7y agoI do think human spaceflight is a bad idea for now, but Chandrayaan-2 is a robotic mission.
- adventured 7y ago> No-one ever says "We spend billions on Football; let's spend it on poor people instead" That one is said constantly (at least in the US). It comes up as a matter of routine as it pertains to the extremely high salaries that professional athletes get paid and with regard to the construction of new stadiums (which often cost a billion dollars or more now, are frequently taxpayer subsidized, and are often replacing functional 30 year old stadiums). The top 500 NBA, NFL and MLB players earn more in salary than the CEOs of the S&P 500. The MLB payroll is $4 billion for ~750 players. Just the top 30 players in the NBA are earning one billion dollars per year combined. NBA teams are spending near $4 billion per year on salaries for ~450 players, or around $8 to $9 million per player. The 32 NFL teams are spending nearly $6 billion per year. Between the NBA, NFL and MLB, there is around $13 to $14 billion in salaries.
- jayd16 7y agoWell the obvious difference is public vs private spending. People do complain about public funding for stadiums.
- adventured 7y agoI agree generally (when the two are entirely separated), however on the actual context the interesting thing about so much taxpayer subsidization for stadiums in the US, is that it means the entire thing becomes partially taxpayer subsidized including player salaries. The players often can earn so much in part because the stadiums generate so much (varies depending on the league and TV contracts, etc). Taxpayer funds have directly & persistently assisted, decade after decade, in the sports leagues being built up financially. I think cumulatively it is to such an extent that you could never say there is such a thing as wholly private spending in any of the major US sports leagues (I realize this varies country to country).
- screye 7y agoAlso, India produces a staggering amount of geniuses who leave the country due to lack of good roles or technical challenges. Having ISRO or Brahmos around, allows the country to keep some of its smartest in the country, before they are poached by the west.
- henvic 7y agoYou must see whether the money used in something is from the te sector or if it was stolen from the people through taxation. If it is the former, it's none of your business and indeed it doesn't make anyone poorer. If it is the later, it's of everyone's business, unfair, and bad. I'm not into Indian space endeavours but probably the money comes from poor taxpayers who would be way better off if they weren't plundered in the first place.
- shripadk 7y ago> I'm not into Indian space endeavours but probably the money comes from poor taxpayers who would be way better off if they weren't plundered in the first place. If you don't know then it's best not to talk because it only helps perpetuate the already negative stereotype that most have. The poor aren't even taxed in India. Indians are only taxed after they have a minimum salary of 7.5 lakhs per annum (accounting for all the deductions). Which is around 11,000 USD. And no this amount isn't low by Indian standards (the per-capita income is 7,060 USD). The cost of living in India is extremely low and inflation is well controlled (< 3%) so this amount is actually pretty decent to live in a Tier-1 city with a nice 2-bedroom apartment on rent. You can call this the lower middle class. And even they pay lesser tax until they hit the 20 lakhs per annum (30,000 USD) bracket (5%-20% based on where you fall in the slab rates). And almost 70% of the rural households practice Agriculture in India. All these people are exempted from paying both Income Tax and GST. And if they have a bad season sometimes their loans are also waived. India is a 3 trillion $ economy. India needs to find new ways to get to a 10 trillion $ economy if it wants to improve standards of living for all Indians and lift the remaining 300 million people out of poverty (it has already lifted 271 million people out of poverty in 10 years [1]. Can you name a single country that has achieved this feat in such a short span of time?). One of the areas where India can earn big is Space. ISRO is already a profitable enterprise for the Government. There is no reason why anyone will want it to be shutdown for anything. Especially when it is making huge profits. [1]: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-million-people-out-of-poverty-in-10-years-un/article28397694.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-lifted-271-mill...
- rohit2412 7y ago
- BurningFrog 7y agoGermany did not do big government engineering projects. They had a certain distaste for that after the war... Instead they deregulated and let private enterprise rebuild their economy.
- BurningFrog 7y agoKinda annoyed that my correct description of West German history is downvoted to -2 points by jerks who have nothing to say...
- coldtea 7y ago>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. Technology doesn't work like that, either. A country can "acquire deep technical know-how on engineering" by doing earth-bound R&D and working on its infrastructure problems... Not to mention that they're not learning much new -- they just repeat what other countries have done since decades, most of which their engineers already know (they already send satellites and make military rockets and such). Let's not pretend space vs local infrastructure is not an opportunity cost.