Talk:Indian Space Research Organisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)

[edit] Copyvio

~~Can we at least put a re-direct to the temp page while the article is locked down??Duk 17:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)~~ (copyvio resolved 26 September 2004)

[edit] Are you sure?

"ISRO is regarded as one of the top 5 space agencies in the world."As an Indian i would be proud of this,but i am not sure if this is entirely true,if a source is cited it would be wonderful.Prateek01 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is true but I doubt one can find a citation for it. I don't think anyone out there has decided to quantify and rank different space programmes. As a result, it should probably be edited to something more generic: "ISRO is regarded as one of the leading space agencies in the world."(Blacksun 23:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

I changed this passage. I would say NASA, ESA, Russia and JAXA are currently more successful and still "more important". I would put ISRO on the same level as the Chinese, French, German and Italian space agencies but ahead of the Brazilian, Canadian, Argentine and Spanish space agencies. 144.211.195.111 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually many people consider us more successfull than the Japanese - putting us in the top 5 with Russia, USA, EU and China. Our space program is ongoing, has a large budget (very large at PPP), etc, whereas Japan have suffered setbacks, and budget cuts. 86.128.224.82 02:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add the budget worth of ISRO first in its native currency crores INR and quote the same figure in USD which 700 million USD.

I would place ISRO at number 5, after NASA, Russia, ESA and Japan. There would be a tie between ISRO and China for the 5th position.

IAF

I'd agree with your position there IAF. It's also worth noting that the ISRO develops its own technology whereas the Chinese space agency which just buys decades old technology from Russia. Thus, even if China launched a manned mission, it was really the Russian scientists who developed the technology after which the Chinese made a few modifications. [1]

74.112.123.80 17:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying ISRO developed its own technology, rocket boosters and all but we could not develop the LCA engine? Seems a bit funny to hear about it. I wish they would publish the cartosat images publically, given that it is a government organization and funded by public money, they are obligated to publish the images either on their website or elsewhere so that people can use the same.

[edit] Merger

Please see my comments on Talk:Indian space program. --Andy123(talk) 13:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

agree --Blacksun 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

agree to a certain extent as the Indian space program article has little content right now. On the other hand it may be prudent to leave the articles separate while that article is developed. -- Vivek 21:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] use of unwanted word

Some unwanted words were used in the passages towards the end, like; "most" capable and many such instances were removed, as they look more like propaganda than a simple narrative. Though the article talks about our space programme, I strongly think that neutrality of an article is synonymous with its' integrity.

As for merging the article with ISRO, I'm against it.

[edit] What?

Why has someone deleted half of the article? It will be reverted. Vastu 17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article was reverted to the full form following a request from Vasru. However, there were some edits between the version it was reverted to and the version just prior to reversion. I am really sorry for the inconvenience produced. However, those edits that had to be reverted for the sake og getting back the full articles were relaticely minor and can be redone, I guess. Please comply.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference?

Found this under "Satellite launching service":

ISRO has also entered the lucrative market of launching payloads of other nations upon its rockets from Indian soil. Recent amongst these were the launching of a spy satellite of Israel in late 2005, and the upcoming launch of the Israeli Tauvex-II satellite, scheduled for launch in late 2006

I dont recollect an Israeli satellite launched in 2005. I believe Israel has its own launch capabilities for its spy satellites (we talking about Ofeks here?)

I couldnt find any other reference to corroborate this statement - it should be removed.

[edit] Israel chooses Indian PSLV to launch satellite

Israel did launch its Spy-satelite in late 2005 from Indian PSLV, because its own Shavit rockets were unsuitable for the purpose. One may refer to this news report from space.com : http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_051114.html

[edit] Merging

I would think ISRO is much bigger organization & the Indian space program are releated but not one & the same. So we do need to keep em separate. Merging seems to be a ridiculous idea. Did anyone do that for NASA & American Space Program? --பராசக்தி 05:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Share maps

Wonder why INSAT program and ISRO do not share their maps like NASA does. It would be a boon to Indians, specially aiding in navigation and , maye things as simple as finding a way to go from A to B.

[edit] Unsucessful Launch is a "Major Achievement"?

Under Major Achievements, it says that the INSAT 4C Launch was unsucessful. Surely this is not an achievement? Can we put this fact somewhere else in the article? Cyberguy410 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Indian human spaceflight program" article into Indian Space Research Organisation#Question of crewed missions

Merger request! An entire article based on pure speculation is a rare example. It would better served as a sub-section ISRO main article.

NASA and Roscosmos, despite their unprecedented success, have human spaceflight summary within the main article section
Indian manned space programme (as of 12.02.07) is purely based on speculation
A manned spacecraft design programme is yet to announed
The article "Indian human spaceflight program" appears more as a hopeful idea, rather than factual page
The SCRE is a fairly basic spacecraft recovery programme and is no concrete indication of a future spacecraft
Thus, the Indian human spaceflight programme piece will be best served under the ISRO relevant sub-section

- Ash sul 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that Indian human spaceflight program should be merged with the article on ISRO, the points you gave above to prove your point were not at all convincing. ISRO declared some time in November that it planning to send a human into space and two months later it successfully carries out the Space Capsule Recovery Experiment, a crucial part of any human space flight program. For India, atmospheric reentry has only two major applications: ICBM and human spaceflights and the SRE-1 looked as if it was another version of Apollo's command module. And can you explain "fairly basic spacecraft recovery programme". It just didn't make any sense! I wonder the difference between a basic and an advanced spacecraft recovery programme. --Incman|वार्ता 02:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

All the announcements (as far as I can see through various links) have come from news interviews, rather than a concrete press release of an established manned space programme. You must remember, Ronald Regan announced in the 80's that the US were to build an american space station within 10 years (of the announcement), which never became a reality. Press interviews are often superficial rather than factual statements.
The SCRE appears to be the basis of future recoverable spacecraft, manned (e.g. - Apollo spacecraft) or unmanned (e.g. - Russian Parom) in theory, to recover a payload from space. It is quite an old technology in terms of the other space agencies closer to Indian space budget. I suppose an advanced recoverable spacecraft would be under a programme directed specifically to achive a manned spacecraft.
I have use the word "basic" superficially to outline that the SCRE programme was not enough to justify the statement that India has an active manned space programme. It was not intended to describe the SCRE programme itself. -- Ash sul 12:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is quite an old technology in terms of the other space agencies closer to Indian space budget". As far as I know, apart from India, ESA, Russia, US, China and Japan are the only countries/organizations which have successfully carried out atmospheric reentry and ISRO is the least experienced space organization in this field. I definitely agree that SCRE has other uses also, but from the statements being made by ISRO officials (see this), it seems that the primary objective of this program was to master manned spaceflights. ISRO has itself said the SCRE was a prototype of a future space vehicle. US' failure to setup a space station has resulted in a major embarrassment for NASA and US govt. Since then, countries have prevented from making such claims beforehand. For example, China never publicly announced its plans for manned space missions and anti-satellite missiles. Regarding SCRE being a "basic" program, well.. it was ISRO first such experiment. Nonetheless, I know that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the material in it should be based on hard concrete evidences. Since the Indian space program, as of now, remains nothing else but mere speculation the article on it should be merged with ISRO under the section future plans. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 18:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote from one of the sources : "The Centre approval to India's manned mission to space finds expression in the Union Budget.

The Indian Space Research Organisation's "pre-project initiatives" to propel an Indian into space have been sanctioned Rs 50 crore for 2007-08.

Top ISRO sources said the flight is likely to be in 2015, followed by an Indian stepping on the Moon in 2020. An orbiter to Mars in 2014 is also among the ISRO's initiatives during the 11th five-year plan."

Rs 50 crore is more than the budget currently dedicated by ESA to Crew Space Transportation System and however this one has his own article. There are lot more articles about stuff which is much more speculative than that. See Beagle 2: Evolution for instance. Hektor 05:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The section Opinions and analysis appears to lack neutrality and references (of facts)

This enite section seems to echo national pride when comparing to agencies of other national space programmes
No evidence/references when announcing Indian space programme as very cost efficient
Claims such as "the ISRO is arguably the most financially successful space programme" is not backed by any reliable research reference(s) and can easily be viewed as a very biased statement
The criticism sub-section hardly contains any critical view. Rather it appears to be an "answer" to international critics and an explanation of why India should spend so much money on Space agency, when the country is obviously dogged by poor infrastructure, very low living standards, high crime rate and corruption, etc.
Overall, this section appears to be quite misleading when read from a neutral point of view. This is clearly not how an encyclopedia entry should be.

- Ash sul 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed. If you have some other issues, please go ahead. Thanks for sharing your views on the article. Cheers --Marqus 22:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

actually we have deleted the critics column from the isro , since no one has the autority other then the people of india to crtisize ISRO . as far as ur point regarding infrastructure and poors is concerned , we know how to address that problem and we don't need ny advices ! its aarticle for isro so stick to it , don't give unwarranted advices and commnents , other then regarding the ISRO !

I think you do need help. That's why the world still gives huge amounts of aid to India - as it is unable to feed it's own people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

- The US is set to cut aid to India by 35% in 2008 after the South Asian nation was categorised as a “transforming” country with one of the best-performing economies in the world, in a sweeping overhaul of the US foreign assistance programme. - In 2003, India became a creditor nation to the International Monetary Fund. The inablility of the indian government in ensuring minimum standards of living to its people, has less to do with the availablility of internal resources (which are plentiful) than with efficient utilization and management. So its a myth that India needs financial aid for anything. It needs better systems of governance and less corruption. But many aid agencies seem to find it expedient to portray India as in need of financial assistance, in order to faciitate their own fund-collection efforts.

Yes, of course the media just enjoys portraying India as poor.

[edit] Indian Govt Started funding for Manned Mission, ISRO Started development

I don't there is a reason to merge the article anymore. Enough details are now availiable to make sure this India has already started development.

Even in last year, By No means this Program is Speculate. ISRO clearly Said "They have Started Detailed Feasibility Studies" last year. Now its over, Development of Crew Module has Began.

GSLV Mk-II is the launch vehicle, can carry 5 tons to LEO. And Indian Govt Started Funding for the mission, which means development has officially began. Link: [2] [3] [4] --219.91.198.10 15:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The article has been merged despite the lack of consenus. I have reverted.Hektor 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "About ISRO" Section of "Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre" into "Indian Space Research Organisation"

I see no reason why the section About ISRO needs to exist in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre. I suggest that section be merged into this article. 59.95.58.104 16:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this one. The article should exist as in itself, but the about ISRO should not be there. It has no relevance. The formatting of this particular section is also not done well. Abhishek Chandra (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sounding rockets, not SLVs

I added RH-75,[5] RH-125,[6] RH-200,[7] RH-300,[8] RH-300 Mk II,RH-300 and RH-560.[9], to the "Past Launch vehicles section". I was unsure if it was the right place and... looks like it wasn't, as it was commented out for not belonging there. Fine by me. But could anyone put that wherever it is best, please? I have no idea where... I was just trying to call attention to a couple of redlink at "articles requested for more than a year". Or warn if there's no need to suchc articles so that the request are removed. Thanks. - Nabla 01:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can add it under a new section of sounding rockets.. the only problem is that most space programs develop a LOT of sounding rockets. Guess we can keep the section till it gets too large... Sniperz11 01:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something like the lauch vehicles... One separate article with all those redirecting there? (Note:Sorry that I can't help much... I wouldn't know how to write a line about it, no more than what's in the external pages above) - Nabla 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is with Indian and Chinese?

Just about every time I check an Indian related article on Wiki; some comparison is made between India and some other country and especially with China. Be it economic, government, military/space hardware or science & technology; Indian seems to have a fixation on the Chinese. A typical article would contain a number paragraphs dedicated to future development that is over nationalist or a comparison that would put India on par with more developed nations.

Using this article as an example “Comparison with other space agencies” is purely guestimate and unnecessary as it is not present on article related to other space agency. And the talk of where to place ISRO in relation to other agency on this page demonstrated my point. Some Indian wikipedian place ISRO either ahead of or on par with CNSA & JAXA even though few non-Indian would agree with that assessment. (WannabeAmatureHistorian (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

- Its true that comparisons are drawn between India and China - this seems to be aspirational ; India seems to aspire to be what China is today - economically and technologically. This is not necessarily undesirable. ----

-I agree with the argument. It seems to me all the references in this article are Indian in origin. A few non-Indian sources would make the article more realistic. The article is nationalistic and non-neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. "Comparison with other agencies" is ridiculous. Sounds super-nationalistic. Hence removed. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PSLV-CA 1.jpg

Image:PSLV-CA 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of ISRO in Hindi.

That should definitely be included, with an IAST and perhaps IPA transliteration (there is no ISRO article on the Hindi Wikipedia; the only one in Devanagari is on the Marathi Wikipedia). Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Many of the so called citations in this article lead to non-existent reference pages or pages which do not support the statement made. The article is very unreliable and needs expert attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.97.11 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not keep reverting that citation I have removed 'India is counted amongst the six major space powers in the world' - the citation is flawed and does not support the statement made.If anyone does find a reliable source quoting such a statement, then of course please add :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

80.176.97.11: Many of the so called citations in this article lead to non-existent reference pages or pages which do not support the statement made. Apart from what Colliver55 has pointed out, can you please list those citations which lead to non-existant pages and those that don't support the statement? Perhaps if they are found to be bad citations, we can remove them and substitute with the {{Fact}} tag.

Also please remember to sign your posts in any talk/discusions page (as in this one) in future by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each post. S3000 ☎ 09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are enough references in the article. If you feel otherwise, it will be better you add cn tag instead of taggin the whole article.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there does not seem to be concensus that the references provided by the article are adequate to support its claims I have flagged this article as "Start" class for WikiProject Space. Someone involved with WikiProject India may wish to re-assess this article against that project's "B-class" criteria. (sdsds - talk) 03:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing source citation

I notice with some dismay the recent removal of a valid source citation from this article. Please explain if there is some reason for this that is in any way motivated by established Wikipedia policy. (sdsds - talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)