Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemm.ee

38 replies

lemmy.world

One of the big cost saving features was not giving their engineers paychecks for the last 17 months apparently....

https://lemmy.world/post/3801333?scrollToComments=true

A day after the Congress sought to puncture the hype around Modi’s leadership for the achievement of landing on the moon by recalling how India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had created the key infrastructure for technological advancements, general secretary K.C. Venugopal raised critical questions about the government’s attitude towards science.

Venugopal tweeted: “The excitement and pride of Chandrayaan-3 will stay with us for a long time. Isro Chairman Dr Somanath’s leadership truly created history and we extend our hearty congratulations to him and his team. However, the Prime Minister must answer some (questions) for his hypocrisy. You were quick to come on screen and take credit after the landing, but why has your government failed so terribly in supporting the scientists and Isro?”

"Why did the HEC (Heavy Engineering Corporation, Ranchi) engineers who worked on Chandrayaan-3 not receive their salaries for the last 17 months? Why did you cut the budget for such crucial missions by 32%? These are the heroes of our country, they run a world-class space research programme, but you have no regard for their talent and hard work. To add insult to injury, you hogged the limelight when that moment was about the scientists’ achievements,” he added.

190
lemm.ee

And the masters take credit for the slaves. Cuz, you know... If people aren't commodities and I treat my workers like commodities, then they must not be people.

28
Th4tGuyIIreply
kbin.social

A bad boss hogging all the credit for the hard work their subordinates did, while treating them crapily, what's new?

18
lemmy.world

Interstellar grossed over $700,000,000 at the box office. How much money will Chandrayaan-3 make?

Just showing how pointless this comparison is.

65
Lmaydevreply
programming.dev

It's very hard to put a price on scientific advancement like this.

It often involves development of new technologies, talent and facilities that can generate money for decades.

The actual profit generated can be insanely large. Like the original NASA missions. They gave us so much technology. They are likely responsible for billions of future profit derived from the tech.

Consumer products like wireless headsets, LED lighting, portable cordless vacuums, freeze-dried foods, memory foam, scratch-resistant eyeglass lenses and many other familiar products have all benefited from space technology research and development. Modern laptop computers are direct descendants of The Shuttle Portable Onboard Computer (SPOC), which was developed in the early 1980s for the space shuttle program.

34
Phanatikreply
kbin.social

Worth pointing out that the scientific advancement would generate billions that NASA will only see a fraction of.

11

Isn't NASA funded by tax payer's dollars? I guess you can look at it as a government funded non-profit research lab that it's mission statement is to generate technological advancements for the general public's benefit.

20

Indeed. As they are publicly funded that money comes back in the form a taxing the profits private companies make from the technology, rather than directly into their pockets.

6
lemmy.world

It's not an advancement if it's already been done multiple times, just that by other countries

2

But even training those personnel and building facilities can lead to more breakthroughs later. It's why it's so hard to put a price on scientific endeavours.

3
weedazzreply
lemmy.world

Well if they find water there it could make way more

7

Eh I can get water from my tap, I won’t buy any of that funky moon water.

4
lemm.ee

I mean, if you ignore all the R&D costs up to now, including the cost of the 2 failed attempts that came before. And comparing it to house prices isn't great either, they're comparing the sale price of a house with the cost price of a rocket. It didn't cost £200M to build that house that sold for £200M.

Still though, it's a great achievement, and keeping a relatively low budget is impressive.

40

Why include R&D up to this point? Do we say Mars Pathfinder (Sojourner) actually cost billions because we include previous Mars missions?

I think it's just a bad article. They throw out numbers but don't say how they got them.

10
pingvenoreply
kbin.social

Russia landed on the moon, too. They just had a few more pieces.

14
TWeaKreply
lemm.ee

They were going for a speed record.

5
iamakreply
infosec.pub

You could say Russian landing was more impactful and groundbreaking

7

On the second try. First time their engine also over preformed putting them out of the very narrow corridor that their altimeter was expecting. But it looks like India has really overhauled and reworked the code to be much more robust this time.

2

Yeah, people always forget that purchasing power is a very important detail when you compare currency economies either in present day or historical contexts.

10
TWeaKreply
lemm.ee

Why is purchasing power relevant here? They're not talking about how much the country can afford, but how economical they are in achieving their goals.

2
TWeaKreply
lemm.ee

Oh ok, I see what you mean. People are paid less and things cost less in India, basically.

2

I have worked with many Indian engineers. They keep going like a fucking train. I felt like they already knew all the about the project even before they got hired.

4
lemmy.world

Have there been any people on the moon other than the Americans back in the day?

3
lemmy.world

12 Americans have walked on the moon, with the last one in 1972. Four of them are still alive. Everything else has been unmanned.

11

You reached the end