7 ms·
Not asking rhetorically but why is this a big deal? Is it because it's going to the south pole? What are some other benefits to be gained from this?
by thyrox 3y ago
Not asking rhetorically but why is this a big deal? Is it because it's going to the south pole? What are some other benefits to be gained from this?
- mmx4332 3y agoThis may not be a popular question, but given the amount of poverty in India, is a space program really the best expenditure? As a geek, I love the space program. As a human, I don't think it makes sense given the poverty.
- pietro72ohboy 3y agoA nation isn't a singular-minded entity; rather, it comprises diverse citizens who assume various roles and contribute uniquely to global improvement. Just because they've successfully landed a rover on the moon doesn't imply the abandonment of all efforts to alleviate poverty. Honestly, why does the recognition of India's positive accomplishments always seem overshadowed by the specter of poverty and other challenges? Did the Americans eradicate every societal issue before embarking on their lunar mission? Indians should be proud — this accomplishment is truly remarkable and signifies positive societal strides toward a better collective future. Such achievements ignite hope, and progress is fundamentally built upon hope, regardless of the symbolic origins it might stem from.
- dotnet00 3y agoAn alternative perspective to consider, what happens to all the skilled engineers interested in and capable of working on advanced technologies like those intended for space if a country decides to put all other development on hold to singlemindedly focus on eradicating poverty? What would happen to the next generations of talented potential engineers? What value would there be to pursuing an advanced education? Since obviously a space program isn't the only "luxury" that should be put on hold if poverty exists! The talent would all leave and the next generations would be less incentivized to pursue the very kinds of careers that help a country develop.
- rep_movsd 3y agoLook at the US military budget https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/image/2020/12/002_military_spending_percent_of_world.png https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/image/2020/12/002_mi... versus education https://i0.wp.com/cef.org/wp-content/uploads/slide2-1.jpg https://i0.wp.com/cef.org/wp-content/uploads/slide2-1.jpg As a human I think you should arrest Elon Musk immediately for misleading advertising and fraudulent claims. As a human I think the US should open its borders for immigrants from Asia. As a human I think the US should scrap the petrodollar and licence as much nuclear tech as possible.
- mkl 3y agoIt's a big deal because India has never landed on the moon before; only three nations have.
- goku12 3y agoThis is the first time India soft-landed anything outside of Earth. That by itself is a big deal. Soft-landing guidance on a body without atmosphere is much more complex than launch guidance.
- rospaya 3y ago> With this mission, India became the first to impact the Lunar south pole and the 7th nation to reach the lunar surface. Wiki article for Chandrayaan-1 from 2008.
- dharmit 3y agoTwo points I'm aware of: 1. No one has managed to make a landing on the moon's South Pole yet. 2. Since the South Pole doesn't get any sunlight at all, it's believed that there's a possibility of discovering ice/water there.
- hoseja 3y ago* bottoms of craters on the South Pole. Some places there get eternal sunlight instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light
- goku12 3y agoAssuming that CY3 landed somewhere it gets eternal sunlight, I can see how this can be an issue. Many landers and rovers have horizontal solar panels - they would work as long as the sun is reasonably above the horizon. However, the sun is always going to be near the horizon at the poles. That would not only require the solar panel to be mounted vertically, but also be oriented towards the sun somehow.
- mrphoebs 3y agoMission to unexplored south pole of the moon and investigating the presence of surface water at the bottom of craters that don't receive sunlight. Simultaneously capability development and demonstration for ISRO
- swader999 3y agoAliens. They are out there somewhere.
- The_Colonel 3y agoBesides what others said, it gets extra spice from the fact Russia failed to do the same just days ago.
- prennert 3y agoAnd the BRICS summit is going on right now... What a powerful display of softpower.
- sph 3y agoModi will be soft landing in his chair with a smile at the BRICS summit.
- Trias11 3y agoAgree. The quicker russians will get rid of putin infestation the sooner this disgrace will end.
- hh3k0 3y ago[flagged]
- dotnet00 3y agoThus the joke that Russia's history can be summarized as "and then it got worse".
- dang 3y agoNationalistic flamewar will get you banned here, regardless of which country you have a problem with. No more of this please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- hh3k0 3y ago[flagged]
- 3y ago
- subtra3t 3y ago- Only 3 other countries have landed on the moon - Its landing on the south pole where nobody's ever landed before - Russia failed to land on the moon a week or two back
- taneq 3y agoThey've made a controlled landing on the moon. Just because it's been done a few times before, ever, doesn't make this a small accomplishment.
- veave 3y ago[flagged]
- abhayhegde 3y agoSo the mission alone is unimpressive in your opinion? If you were to weed out who did this and only focus on the what, would you not have an inch of wonder and applaud the efforts?
- veave 3y agoThat's not what my comment says. Personally I don't know how impressive or unimpressive the mission is since I am not interested in space exploration and I know almost nothing about it.
- legends2k 3y agoThough you've no interest in space exploration you qualify to pass judgement on how inflated a space exploration related post, how?
- veave 3y agoBecause what I'm mentioning is a phenomenon that occurs in all Indian-related submissions regardless of content.
- DonHopkins 3y agoBecause you're racist, actually.
- luminati 3y agoYou know nothing about space exploration and yet you were compelled to post your earlier drivel?
- lawgimenez 3y agoThe mission is very impressive, regardless of nationality. Come on.
- ajnin 3y agoThis is a big deal because since 1976, only China has (edit: had!) managed to land something successfully on the Moon. And also space exploration is cool in general.
- goku12 3y agoA look at the previous lunar missions [1] should give an idea. There have been 7 lander missions since 1976 (not including impactors): - 3 by China: All success - 1 by Japan (along with a rover from UAE): Failed - 1 by Israel: Failed - 1 by Russia: Failed - 2 by India: Previous one failed. This one succeeded I can see why the entire world would be excited by something like this. I hope that there will be routine landings by different players and that the landing guidance would be perfected. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon#Missions_by_date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon#M...
- FpUser 3y agowhy 1976 is a starting point? Why not counting successful Lunokhod rover missions? Looks like you're trying to to fit facts to narrative.
- goku12 3y agoThere was a fervent space race before that. Do you believe that anybody forgot about the countless interplanetary missions before that? Every time someone tries to collect data points, someone like you will start accusing vested interests rather than argue the reasons behind the data. Edit: Added later: Consider these questions: 1. Russia's lunar missions were all done in 18 years until Luna 24. Why did they then wait 47 years for Luna 25? 2. The US's last lander mission and manned mission was in 1972 (Apollo 17). Why do they want to restart it again after waiting more than half a century? Or am I making this up too? The simple fact is that the current lunar missions are undertaken by an entirely new generation. Those from 1976 has long retired. That's good enough to consider them as two separate timelines.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Pidaymou 3y agoActually 3 by India. 1- was an orbiter: Success 2- Orbiter+ lander&rover: Partial success, orbiter succeed but lander crashed. 3- Lander&rover: Succesful.
- contrarian1234 3y agoI'd be curious if it's at all interesting from a technical perspective. It was impressive in the 60s and 70s because a lot of new things needed to be discovered and understood to make it happen. But now a days.. are there really technical aspects that would not be covered in a typical engineering course? I get it's very expensive and hence difficult to pull off - but this makes it comes off as mostly nationalism and a big display of disposable income (which for a country with so much poverty is .. something)
- legends2k 3y agoTechnically no one has landed in the crater ridden South pole on the dark side of the moon. Scientifically it's useful to course these uncharted parts of the moon both for water/ice and mineral composition. I don't see how poverty comes into play here: every nation had similar issues when they were doing space exploration. They are two unrelated spheres. Solving one doesn't mean the other won't be
- albert_e 3y agoThe budget with which this mission was accomplished is something. Less than a typical hollywood movie budget.
- robgibbons 3y agoLess even than some Bollywood movie budgets.
- phanimahesh 3y agoThe money used on these programmes doesn't burn up, it gets recirculated. As an Indian I consider this a pretty good use of tax payer money.
- contrarian1234 3y agoIt's a common perspective. My personal experience (working in the defense sector) is that these kinds of endeavors end up tieing up a lot of very smart doing vanity projects that in effect don't "generate value" for society. All the people involved wouldn't just be sitting on their hands if the moon project didn't exist. But I guess it could be worse.. they could be working on moving money around or pushing ads on to people
- wheelerof4te 3y agoWe get to see more images of the Moon's surface. In a previously unexplored region. How is that not a big deal?