
Indian cabinet approves India's first manned space mission - skbohra123
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/cabinet-approves-rs-10000-crore-for-indias-human-spaceflight-programme/articleshow/67286623.cms
======
jens8
I have no great knowledge of this sector but why is India investing so much
here? Do they see it as potentially paying off like their IT sector somewhere
down the road? How much of this tech is cheaper to engineer in India?

~~~
gumby
Well why should anyone do this? India can, and as the aphorism says,
"[humankind] does not live by bread alone". In addition space travel is
important today and why be beholden to other countries for a capability you
could have for yourself? Just as an example, several countries have build or
are building alternatives to GPS so that they can build something they can
depend on and not risk being shut out by the USA.

It makes more sense for India to do this today than it did for the USSR to do
it in the 50s. But I think we are all glad that the USSR launched the
exploration of space!

------
known
And 97% people in India are poor by global standards
[http://idronline.org/addressing-inequality-in-
india/](http://idronline.org/addressing-inequality-in-india/)

~~~
worldexplorer
Poverty cannot be solved by simply distributing these money to the poor
instead

------
throwaway98121
On one hand I totally applaud this effort by any country. On the other hand,
my 2015 trip to India was enlightening. Culture shock is an understatement,
and I’m not referring to the differences in food and tradition.

The poverty was mind blowing. Growing up in some projects in Nashville and
going to school because school lunch was the only meal I’d get, I thought I
knew what poverty was.

I remember coming back still somewhat shocked and thinking how trivial many of
the issues are in the US that our politicians have spun up that now Americans
are so divided over.

I’m not saying India shouldn’t invest in space missions. Pushing the boundary
of knowledge is a good thing. I just can’t help and wonder if they should be
solving these terrestrial problems first, just from what I saw there, even
though I know solving those problems and going to space are not mutually
exclusive.

~~~
spikefromspace
I feel like this argument is brought up every time Indian government invests
in anything. My two cents below with the full disclaimer that I have been
fortunate enough to evade poverty most of my life.

I am not saying that the poverty issue and the sheer scale of it, as you
mentioned, shouldn't be a top priority but it can't be the only priority. I am
from India but have lived in the US most of my life and have to say that
looking at both countries, unbounded welfare spending does not seem to solve
the issue of poverty and we can't possibly expect that to work against a
growing population. It may mitigate the scale of it in the short run but in
the long run, investing in the economy seems to be a better way of reducing
poverty.

I can't comment much to the merits of doing a manned mission vs other types of
space missions but science investment vs poverty is not a great way for any
government to prioritize spending. For me, balanced spending is the way to go.

~~~
throwaway98121
I’m not in a position of a policy maker, but if I was, I would certainly give
more weight to the social and cleanliness issues over space exploration.
Again, I don’t know the specifics of what the Indian government is doing or
their particular budget, but having lived in poverty (no where as bad as in
India), I want to make sure people are fed, have access to education, and
especially so for children.

Like I said - the two are not mutually exclusive.

When you use the phrase unbounded welfare spending - I think ensuring kids are
fed, have access to schools, and live in a non hazardous environment is key.
Your use of that term sounds very generic to me, and I want to highlight there
is far more nuance. Unbounded welfare spending sounds like something I would
hear on Fox News, and so I take issue with that phrase.

~~~
spikefromspace
>> When you use the phrase unbounded welfare spending - I think ensuring kids
are fed, have access to schools, and live in a non hazardous environment is
key. Your use of that term sounds very generic to me, and I want to highlight
there is far more nuance. Unbounded welfare spending sounds like something I
would hear on Fox News, and so I take issue with that phrase.

I didn't think of the negative connotation of that phrase so thanks for
calling that out. I primarily meant that welfare spending should be
sustainable. If welfare spending continues to grow as a % of revenue, then it
could lead to excessive deficit and debt which can be bad in the long run. Its
my personal point of view that balancing welfare spending with things like
infrastructure/tech/science/education and ensuring those opportunities reach
the less fortunate is a way of keeping it sustainable.

~~~
throwaway98121
Yeah that makes sense. Agreed.

