Business Standard

Thumping chest over ISRO's record? Stop, we need to set the bar higher

There is little evidence that ISRO's activities are sufficient for a growing economy like India's

Pavan Srinath | The Wire 

ISRO, space research
Space agency ISRO successfully launched a record 104 satellites, including India’s earth observation satellite on-board PSLV-C37 series from the spaceport of Sriharikota on Wednesday. Photo: PTI

‘Tis the season to celebrate again. But pardon me if I don’t get up from my seat for this anthem. ISRO’s competence is to be expected, and only higher achievements merit widespread celebration. On February 15, set a new record by launching 104 satellites from one single launch vehicle. This is about three times what anyone had done before.

Make no mistake – this is a feat made possible by good engineering, a focus on precision, and extensive simulations and modelling. The control systems teams at seem to be getting better and better at what they do. Evidently, the is a dependable launch vehicle, usually referred to by news articles as ISRO’s “workhorse”.

In response, there has been a big round of celebrations online and across the country. Lots of unqualified chest-thumping and proclamations about Indian greatness in engineering and in general. Typically, Indians could not unequivocally call themselves the best after any space-related achievement because many missions and countries have been there before us. Therefore, the standard narrative was that India may not be the best but certainly the least expensive and most efficient at getting to space. The ‘low cost’ narrative has reigned supreme.

This time, there is a new twist to the low-cost narrative: that India can be a global leader in launching micro-satellites. From the Hindustan Times, February 15:

The real significance of the launch, therefore, lies in the fact that it allows to test its capabilities for multiple launches of small satellites. This is crucial if India wants to grab a slice of the global market for nano and micro-satellites, which is set to grow close to $3 billion in the next three years. sources point out that some 3,000 satellites will be ready for launch in the next 10 years for navigation, maritime, surveillance and other space-based applications.

From The Ken, February 15:

With Isro planning to launch the more frequently, the rocket could be well placed to take advantage of the rapidly escalating numbers of small satellites that are looking to get into orbit.
 
Last year, the was second only to America’s Atlas V rocket in the number of 1–50kg class small satellites launched, according to the ‘2017 Nano/Microsatellite Market Forecast’ from SpaceWorks Enterprises, a US-based company that prepares assessments of global satellite activity. It predicts that nearly 2,400 such satellites “will require a launch from 2017 through 2023.”

Permit me to be the Grinch on this. Nobody likes damp squibs when others are happily celebrating, but a few points need to be raised.

First: If nanosatellites are the future, why is only launching others’ nanosatellites and not designing any of its own? If recent advancements in electronics have indeed made it possible to reduce the size of many satellites, shouldn’t also do what it can to reduce satellite sizes? After all, every kilogramme of matter that gets transported to the low-Earth orbit costs several thousand dollars. Of course, not all satellites can be reduced in size. Transponders, high resolution cameras and many other units still remain large and high quality and precision should trump size when they are necessary. Even so.

Second: Is the really cost-effective and competitive? We really have no idea. As I wrote in 2013,

[W]hen a French scientist was asked just after the 100th mission launched two French satellites, he remarked that they chose not because it was cheaper, but because the time slot available was convenient and because it was of comparable quality to other launchers.

It is clear that the is reliable and it is also obvious that will not get any business if they do not price their services competitively in the global market. But as we learn in economics 101, price is not the same as cost. has never put out detailed reports on how ISRO’s cost per kilogramme to low-Earth orbit compares to that of other space agencies. To the best of this author’s knowledge, only SpaceX and other space agencies are actively trying to reduce the cost of payloads – by having some of the earlier rocket stages return to ground for reuse, for example.

Third: As Gopal N Raj in The Ken noted, while nanosatellites are set to grow exponentially in number, they will not in terms of revenue for A few, large satellite launches will still net higher revenues.

Fourth: We need to remember that we do not have a working alternative to the yet, and we aren’t doing enough space launches. has/is a national monopoly, even if it competes with other players globally. And there are signs that is suffering from the usual problems at the highest level that monopolies tend to face: lethargy.

There is little evidence that ISRO’s space activities are sufficient for a growing economy like India’s. We need more commercial launches per year, more satellites in space per year (doesn’t matter who launches them) and more scientific missions per year. We need an with growing ambitions, and after the success of the Mars Orbiter Mission, there appears to be some bureaucratic action, with incremental target settings and no real moonshot.

In fact, the raison d’être of a state-run space programme is to do outrageous things that cannot be done by markets, to go beyond what is commercially feasible. A commercial satellite launch isn’t about “boldly [going] where no mortal has gone before”, to use Neil deGrasse Tyson’s adaptation of a popular phrase. needs to focus on the Moon and Mars and beyond and open up commercial satellite launches to a domestic market.

The positive, long-term societal benefit of ‘crazy’ space exploration is well documented. In an era where individuals like can aspire to go to Mars, can aim even higher. (And ask for the budgets it needs.)

Fifth: Finally, can we please set a higher bar for is certainly a world-class organisation, it is competent and among the very best. This is a little unusual for a country that has had to routinely deal with the mediocre. Successful launches of the are no longer newsworthy; they are to be expected of a competent space agency. A country that has successfully launched a probe into martian orbit doesn’t need to giddily celebrate every time we send a tonne of electronics a couple hundred kilometres above ground.

– Your friendly neighbourhood Space-Grinch.

This article was originally published on Indian National Interest and was reproduced on thewire.in with permission. Pavan Srinath is a Fellow and faculty member at the Takshashila Institution. He anchors the Indian National Interest platform.

In arrangement with thewire.in. Read the original story here.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Thumping chest over ISRO's record? Stop, we need to set the bar higher

There is little evidence that ISRO's activities are sufficient for a growing economy like India's

There is little evidence that ISRO's activities are sufficient for a growing economy like India's
‘Tis the season to celebrate again. But pardon me if I don’t get up from my seat for this anthem. ISRO’s competence is to be expected, and only higher achievements merit widespread celebration. On February 15, set a new record by launching 104 satellites from one single launch vehicle. This is about three times what anyone had done before.

Make no mistake – this is a feat made possible by good engineering, a focus on precision, and extensive simulations and modelling. The control systems teams at seem to be getting better and better at what they do. Evidently, the is a dependable launch vehicle, usually referred to by news articles as ISRO’s “workhorse”.

In response, there has been a big round of celebrations online and across the country. Lots of unqualified chest-thumping and proclamations about Indian greatness in engineering and in general. Typically, Indians could not unequivocally call themselves the best after any space-related achievement because many missions and countries have been there before us. Therefore, the standard narrative was that India may not be the best but certainly the least expensive and most efficient at getting to space. The ‘low cost’ narrative has reigned supreme.

This time, there is a new twist to the low-cost narrative: that India can be a global leader in launching micro-satellites. From the Hindustan Times, February 15:

The real significance of the launch, therefore, lies in the fact that it allows to test its capabilities for multiple launches of small satellites. This is crucial if India wants to grab a slice of the global market for nano and micro-satellites, which is set to grow close to $3 billion in the next three years. sources point out that some 3,000 satellites will be ready for launch in the next 10 years for navigation, maritime, surveillance and other space-based applications.

From The Ken, February 15:

With Isro planning to launch the more frequently, the rocket could be well placed to take advantage of the rapidly escalating numbers of small satellites that are looking to get into orbit.
 
Last year, the was second only to America’s Atlas V rocket in the number of 1–50kg class small satellites launched, according to the ‘2017 Nano/Microsatellite Market Forecast’ from SpaceWorks Enterprises, a US-based company that prepares assessments of global satellite activity. It predicts that nearly 2,400 such satellites “will require a launch from 2017 through 2023.”

Permit me to be the Grinch on this. Nobody likes damp squibs when others are happily celebrating, but a few points need to be raised.

First: If nanosatellites are the future, why is only launching others’ nanosatellites and not designing any of its own? If recent advancements in electronics have indeed made it possible to reduce the size of many satellites, shouldn’t also do what it can to reduce satellite sizes? After all, every kilogramme of matter that gets transported to the low-Earth orbit costs several thousand dollars. Of course, not all satellites can be reduced in size. Transponders, high resolution cameras and many other units still remain large and high quality and precision should trump size when they are necessary. Even so.

Second: Is the really cost-effective and competitive? We really have no idea. As I wrote in 2013,

[W]hen a French scientist was asked just after the 100th mission launched two French satellites, he remarked that they chose not because it was cheaper, but because the time slot available was convenient and because it was of comparable quality to other launchers.

It is clear that the is reliable and it is also obvious that will not get any business if they do not price their services competitively in the global market. But as we learn in economics 101, price is not the same as cost. has never put out detailed reports on how ISRO’s cost per kilogramme to low-Earth orbit compares to that of other space agencies. To the best of this author’s knowledge, only SpaceX and other space agencies are actively trying to reduce the cost of payloads – by having some of the earlier rocket stages return to ground for reuse, for example.

Third: As Gopal N Raj in The Ken noted, while nanosatellites are set to grow exponentially in number, they will not in terms of revenue for A few, large satellite launches will still net higher revenues.

Fourth: We need to remember that we do not have a working alternative to the yet, and we aren’t doing enough space launches. has/is a national monopoly, even if it competes with other players globally. And there are signs that is suffering from the usual problems at the highest level that monopolies tend to face: lethargy.

There is little evidence that ISRO’s space activities are sufficient for a growing economy like India’s. We need more commercial launches per year, more satellites in space per year (doesn’t matter who launches them) and more scientific missions per year. We need an with growing ambitions, and after the success of the Mars Orbiter Mission, there appears to be some bureaucratic action, with incremental target settings and no real moonshot.

In fact, the raison d’être of a state-run space programme is to do outrageous things that cannot be done by markets, to go beyond what is commercially feasible. A commercial satellite launch isn’t about “boldly [going] where no mortal has gone before”, to use Neil deGrasse Tyson’s adaptation of a popular phrase. needs to focus on the Moon and Mars and beyond and open up commercial satellite launches to a domestic market.

The positive, long-term societal benefit of ‘crazy’ space exploration is well documented. In an era where individuals like can aspire to go to Mars, can aim even higher. (And ask for the budgets it needs.)

Fifth: Finally, can we please set a higher bar for is certainly a world-class organisation, it is competent and among the very best. This is a little unusual for a country that has had to routinely deal with the mediocre. Successful launches of the are no longer newsworthy; they are to be expected of a competent space agency. A country that has successfully launched a probe into martian orbit doesn’t need to giddily celebrate every time we send a tonne of electronics a couple hundred kilometres above ground.

– Your friendly neighbourhood Space-Grinch.

This article was originally published on Indian National Interest and was reproduced on thewire.in with permission. Pavan Srinath is a Fellow and faculty member at the Takshashila Institution. He anchors the Indian National Interest platform.

In arrangement with thewire.in. Read the original story here.
image
Business Standard
177 22

Thumping chest over ISRO's record? Stop, we need to set the bar higher

There is little evidence that ISRO's activities are sufficient for a growing economy like India's

‘Tis the season to celebrate again. But pardon me if I don’t get up from my seat for this anthem. ISRO’s competence is to be expected, and only higher achievements merit widespread celebration. On February 15, set a new record by launching 104 satellites from one single launch vehicle. This is about three times what anyone had done before.

Make no mistake – this is a feat made possible by good engineering, a focus on precision, and extensive simulations and modelling. The control systems teams at seem to be getting better and better at what they do. Evidently, the is a dependable launch vehicle, usually referred to by news articles as ISRO’s “workhorse”.

In response, there has been a big round of celebrations online and across the country. Lots of unqualified chest-thumping and proclamations about Indian greatness in engineering and in general. Typically, Indians could not unequivocally call themselves the best after any space-related achievement because many missions and countries have been there before us. Therefore, the standard narrative was that India may not be the best but certainly the least expensive and most efficient at getting to space. The ‘low cost’ narrative has reigned supreme.

This time, there is a new twist to the low-cost narrative: that India can be a global leader in launching micro-satellites. From the Hindustan Times, February 15:

The real significance of the launch, therefore, lies in the fact that it allows to test its capabilities for multiple launches of small satellites. This is crucial if India wants to grab a slice of the global market for nano and micro-satellites, which is set to grow close to $3 billion in the next three years. sources point out that some 3,000 satellites will be ready for launch in the next 10 years for navigation, maritime, surveillance and other space-based applications.

From The Ken, February 15:

With Isro planning to launch the more frequently, the rocket could be well placed to take advantage of the rapidly escalating numbers of small satellites that are looking to get into orbit.
 
Last year, the was second only to America’s Atlas V rocket in the number of 1–50kg class small satellites launched, according to the ‘2017 Nano/Microsatellite Market Forecast’ from SpaceWorks Enterprises, a US-based company that prepares assessments of global satellite activity. It predicts that nearly 2,400 such satellites “will require a launch from 2017 through 2023.”

Permit me to be the Grinch on this. Nobody likes damp squibs when others are happily celebrating, but a few points need to be raised.

First: If nanosatellites are the future, why is only launching others’ nanosatellites and not designing any of its own? If recent advancements in electronics have indeed made it possible to reduce the size of many satellites, shouldn’t also do what it can to reduce satellite sizes? After all, every kilogramme of matter that gets transported to the low-Earth orbit costs several thousand dollars. Of course, not all satellites can be reduced in size. Transponders, high resolution cameras and many other units still remain large and high quality and precision should trump size when they are necessary. Even so.

Second: Is the really cost-effective and competitive? We really have no idea. As I wrote in 2013,

[W]hen a French scientist was asked just after the 100th mission launched two French satellites, he remarked that they chose not because it was cheaper, but because the time slot available was convenient and because it was of comparable quality to other launchers.

It is clear that the is reliable and it is also obvious that will not get any business if they do not price their services competitively in the global market. But as we learn in economics 101, price is not the same as cost. has never put out detailed reports on how ISRO’s cost per kilogramme to low-Earth orbit compares to that of other space agencies. To the best of this author’s knowledge, only SpaceX and other space agencies are actively trying to reduce the cost of payloads – by having some of the earlier rocket stages return to ground for reuse, for example.

Third: As Gopal N Raj in The Ken noted, while nanosatellites are set to grow exponentially in number, they will not in terms of revenue for A few, large satellite launches will still net higher revenues.

Fourth: We need to remember that we do not have a working alternative to the yet, and we aren’t doing enough space launches. has/is a national monopoly, even if it competes with other players globally. And there are signs that is suffering from the usual problems at the highest level that monopolies tend to face: lethargy.

There is little evidence that ISRO’s space activities are sufficient for a growing economy like India’s. We need more commercial launches per year, more satellites in space per year (doesn’t matter who launches them) and more scientific missions per year. We need an with growing ambitions, and after the success of the Mars Orbiter Mission, there appears to be some bureaucratic action, with incremental target settings and no real moonshot.

In fact, the raison d’être of a state-run space programme is to do outrageous things that cannot be done by markets, to go beyond what is commercially feasible. A commercial satellite launch isn’t about “boldly [going] where no mortal has gone before”, to use Neil deGrasse Tyson’s adaptation of a popular phrase. needs to focus on the Moon and Mars and beyond and open up commercial satellite launches to a domestic market.

The positive, long-term societal benefit of ‘crazy’ space exploration is well documented. In an era where individuals like can aspire to go to Mars, can aim even higher. (And ask for the budgets it needs.)

Fifth: Finally, can we please set a higher bar for is certainly a world-class organisation, it is competent and among the very best. This is a little unusual for a country that has had to routinely deal with the mediocre. Successful launches of the are no longer newsworthy; they are to be expected of a competent space agency. A country that has successfully launched a probe into martian orbit doesn’t need to giddily celebrate every time we send a tonne of electronics a couple hundred kilometres above ground.

– Your friendly neighbourhood Space-Grinch.

This article was originally published on Indian National Interest and was reproduced on thewire.in with permission. Pavan Srinath is a Fellow and faculty member at the Takshashila Institution. He anchors the Indian National Interest platform.

In arrangement with thewire.in. Read the original story here.

image
Business Standard
177 22