Talk:ISRO/Archive 1

Copyvio
Duk 17:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) (copyvio resolved 26 September 2004) :)

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.
 * 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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

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

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)

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.

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)

Merge "Indian human spaceflight program" article into Indian Space Research Organisation
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)

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.

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:   --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)

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)

sounding rockets, not SLVs
I added RH-75, RH-125, RH-200, RH-300, RH-300 Mk II,RH-300 and RH-560., 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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

Benefits
People, should we create a paragraph outlining the benefits ISRO has had for Indians, given that "The prime objective of ISRO is to develop space technology and its application to various national tasks." This link might give us a start. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be great to find citable material supporting the idea that the different national space agencies each have unique perspectives on how best to develop space technology. As an example, India might "naturally" put more focus than Russia on using spacecraft to study the "water cycle and energy exchange in [the] tropics." The point would be that this isn't a new "space race." Quite the opposite: each participant is running towards a different set of goals! Finding sources that say that explicitly would be great! (sdsds - talk) 02:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GSLV chronology
The GSLV development chronology in the "History" section is a bit of a muddle. For example:


 * The first mention of the GLSV is the GSLV-II. One would have thought the GSLV-I should come first.


 * In several mentions of the GLSV, it is not clear which model is meant.


 * Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mk III says "There is no GSLV-II", but this article doesn't give that impression.


 * In the paragraph starting "Under pressure, Glavkosmos, the Russian Space Agency ...", the sequence of cause and effect, cancellations and (presumably) reversals of cancellation decisions is hard to follow.


 * The article says "The indigenous cryogenic engine for the GSLV's upper stage was tested in 2007", then, after a discussion of some other projects, goes on to say "On November 15, 2007 ISRO achieved a significant milestone through the successful test of indigenously developed Cryogenic Stage..." Is this the same test? If so, the items should be merged.

Also, the description of some recent events, such as the development of the GSLV-III, is confusingly repeated in both the "History" and "Future" sections, and the "Future" section mentions a number of events that (now) are in the past.

Needless to say, if I was knowledgable about this topic I would fix these things, but unfortunately I'm not. 86.133.55.73 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Not informative enough
I think the present article is not informative enough and has to be changed. There is no information regarding launch vehicles, future launch vehicles and many other things. I want to hear from people regarding this article. Is this enough? Should we require launch schedule and launch history of launch vehicles in this article ??? --Johnxxx9 (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the suggestion and can help as far as launch vehicles are concerned. Inclusion of future plans is an excellent idea but we need a few specifications to begin things. The other thing about future plans is the overwhelming reliability on news articles, which interpret every comment by ISRO as a future plan. If an article regarding ISRO's future plans can be found then all the better. We also need a greater inclusion of the Indian Remote Sensing satellite.  JSR   0562  11:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like the NASA article and JAXA would have to used. Launch Vehicle fleet, Manned missions, remote-sensing IRSand communication INSAT, Deep Space Exploration, Achievements, Field Installations etc. These topics have to be there to provide more clarity.--59.92.187.131 (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Requirements of this article
I have done my best, but I want everybody to comment here on the requirements of the article. Please help by expanding it. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Launch vehicles done. Great work! I think we may already have one of the best space agency articles in here. Let me see what can be done about future plans.  JSR   0562  06:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement of the list of all future launches. We just have to mention them. And, Human spaceflight must be a seperate topic irrespective of when it would be carried out and all technology development related to it like SRE must be under that. Deep space missions must include Chandrayaan-1 and is no specifically a future mission for ISRO. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Table
Is there a way to make all the tables' columns uniform in size under the "Field installations" section? I'm poor in tables. JSR do you know how to fix it? Exxoo (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No we can't. As they are different sections we will not be able to do such things.

Chandrayaan-1
This article is about ISRO and not not Chandrayaan-1. Chandrayaan-1 is just a sub-topic on this page an doesn't require updates like 'the star sensor has failed'. The topic has enough in it's present form. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Balance of article
This article reads like a release from ISRO's PR department, as if the whole of India's space programme has been a continuous unmitigated success, with not a single setback, failure or controversy worth mentioning. 86.133.242.226 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC).


 * I had put in a few tables which covered unsuccessful launches and such. It was taken down. If someone can find the many failed tests before the success then all the better.  JSR   0562  06:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is also the controversy surrounding the connection between India's space program and its military ambitions -- which surely needs to be covered. 86.134.55.56 (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC).


 * What's the controversy?  JSR   0562  04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe "controversy" wasn't quite the right word. "Issue" was perhaps what I meant -- regarding the potential application of India's space technology for military ends, and the question raised by some about how much India is really interested in space exploration for its own sake, and how much of the program is really driven by military ambition. Also, there's the criticism that's been levelled at India spending huge amounts of money on the program while some argue the money should be spent in other areas. Don't get me wrong -- I don't have an agenda to denigrate ISRO; I'd just like to see a little more balance in the article in all these areas. 86.133.240.160 (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC).

'India's space technology for military ends' is covered in the quote attributed to Dinshaw Mistry. The overall budget of ISRO is still very low so I don't see how 'spending huge amounts of money' is an issue.  JSR   0562  17:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Between your contributions towards the article are appreciated. Really good work (just realized that you made those edits on Jan 18th).  JSR   0562  17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no mention about the satellite W2M built by ISRO for ESA which failed after 5 weeks in orbit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.25.91 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Associated Scandals
ISRO S-Band Scandal

There seems to be great surprise that such a scandal is taking place at the widely respected ISRO, which is a symbol of India’s high-tech prowess and global rise. The space agency’s achievements in space are a source of great national pride.

The 2005 deal between Devas Multimedia and ISRO’s commercial arm, Antrix, involves the space agency building two S-band satellites, GSAT 6 and GSAT 6A, and the company leasing 90 percent of capacity getting use of them to deliver Internet services. ISRO did not actually allocate S-band spectrum to the company, but provided capacity on the satellites to use the spectrum. The scarce S-band spectrum was provided to deal was made with Devas with no competitive bidding. Devas includes two former high-ranking ISRO officials.

Critics have attacked the no-bid deal as having cost the government millions of dollars while benefiting a well-connected company.

The space agency is not particularly open or candid about its taxpayer-funded work. During the Chandrayaan-1 mission, ISRO went to great lengths to downplay problems with the lunar probe. For example, the agency doubled the spacecraft’s orbit claiming that all work at the lower altitude had been completed. This was false; the real reason was a major system failure that made the spacecraft difficult to control at its original altitude. This news didn’t become public until two months later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikhar D Gupta (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No criticism section?
Nice POV piece - I can't believe this article doesn't contain a whiff of the many and great and often-raised criticisms that India has a hugely-expensive space programme when a large percentage of its population lives in abject poverty and squalor. I wonder why not? 86.147.163.126 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Criticising ISRO for the sake of crticising is not the job of a wikipedia article.-- PremKudva    Talk   05:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For the simple reason that the program is not "hugely expensive". The annual Isro budget is of the order of US$1 billion(as cited in the article). In contrast the government allocation to just the National Highway Authorith was of the order of US$3 billion in 2009. Indeed, the total budgeted expenditure of the Governemnet of India, in the 2009 Union budget of India was of the order of about US$215 billion dollars, in comparison to which the Isro budget is simply minuscle. Further, a major part of ISRO's operations is operating the Indian National Satellite System(INSAT) which is simply indispensible for agricutural planning, meteorology, and tele-communications. 128.32.168.30 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, we will need to provide citations to the the "often-raised-criticisms". I have mostly seen these criticisms on online-forums, which as far as I am aware do not constitute reliable citations for Wikipedia use(or do they?). 128.32.168.30 (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Typically these so_called "criticisms" come from britain or pakistan< both countries with vested anti_india biases59.160.210.68 (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where criticism comes from is irrelevant, it's not Wikipedias' job to consider the validity of criticism but to ensure sourced claims are provided from all angles. As per WP:NPOV, if there is reliable (as in a reliable source) and citable criticism it should be added.  I can think of a number of Broadsheet news articles that come to mind at least.  Indeed if one has reliable evidence such criticism may be biased then that can be added as well. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea, and will take care of the concerns raised above about the criticism not being valid. Piyush (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that Britain has a vested anti-India bias is completely ridiculous. 81.159.78.94 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well actually the commentator is partially correct. Allot of criticism towards Indian articles do come from Pakistan and Britain. However, in the case of Britain its usually from British Pakistanis. The chip on the shoulder apparently gets carried to other countries as well. 174.1.80.242 (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Future
hey guys I have removed Megha-Tropiques from future and upcoming satellite section as it has already been launched........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyom25 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC) ✅

Shorten 'Applications' sub-article
The present 'Applications' part is very large and I think it should be shorter. let's avoid quoting a whole article and just put the important points. Anyway I don't know if someone else's article can be quoted without their permission. It would be copy-righted. Personal views are encouraged and please discuss. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well it looks just fine to me. I glanced through and everything contained there looks relevant enough to be there. According to Quotations we can quote as long as it's properly attribute it to the source. Exxoo (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's only that way because, the organisation and the information released is heavily, HEAVILY biased toward application. There is precious little technical information or scientific history available in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.183 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

More info on how it is run
Since it is an efficient Indian Government organisation, one of the very few, readers would like to know how it is run. Management structure? Do technocrats dominate it? And the like. Incidentally, the NASA article is rated 'Good'.Iceman87 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Put in a link to Org Chart. Too lazy to start an account in Wikimedia Commons. BTW, ISRO's got a clunky website. Really.
 * "Under the guidance of various scientists" Jeez. I mean farmers don't launch rockets, do they? Besides ISRO was launching satellites through Ariane from French Guyana for years. Where is mention of that? Also we still rely on Russia for GSLV, don't we? "Mostly" would be more modest.
 * Some genius seriously needs to fix the table insertion formatting and the like for the new stuff i inserted from the mother site.. Never thought editing a wiki was easy, thankfully.
 * Apologies if my work is shoddy. I clearly need to backup my en-thu with some wiki-fu

We'd add how it was run, if we only knew how it was run. The official website, as mentioned before, is ridiculously useless. And efficient? Please. ISRO's honesty and diligence in continuing to perform largely operational and industrial roles (in INSAT, communication satellites, and Geodesy) belies its loss of direction. The name is Indian SPACE RESEARCH Organisation. And there is precious little happening on that front. --And I have no desire to lambast the organisation, I'm just a Frustrated Indian Space Advocate and Student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.183 (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging of sections
The sections Extraterrestrial exploration and Space exploration must be merged as they have repeat data. How do we go about doing it? Suggestions? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we remove all the content about Mars exploration from the section currently titled Extraterrestrial exploration, and move it to the section Future projects under the subheading Space exploration.  We can then rename the section Extraterrestrial exploration to Space exploration, and keep in it information only about current and past projects, while the Space exploration subsection in Future projects can be used for describing planned and future projects.  Piyush (talk) 07:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Would like to wait for more inputs. Anir1uph (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Updating Data Given
Various Data given in this article is not updated.Like for example Development of crew vehicle has the given line "A future launch has been scheduled for 2011". Its already March 2013 & not updated.Wherever possible i will be updating data, i request other editors to also help update this article & improve its quality.Yohannvt (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will removed outdated data as it is no longer relevant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

About GSLV Mk. III
According to this link - http://www.isro.gov.in/launchers/lvm3 GSLV Mk. III/LVM3 seems to have been classified as a different launcher not part of the original GSLV series. Am I correct in my assumption? And can I go ahead with making the required changes here, here and here? Please respond. Thank you. - Jayadevp  13  06:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pre GA comments
For reference, see WP:GACR &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEADLENGTH
The current lead needs reorganisation. Per that guideline, only four paras max should be there for the article. The first para, especially MOS:BEGIN is of utmost importance. The major contributor/someone similar would be the best candidate to do it. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Controversies
Section S band spectrum scam should be better integrated within the article structure. Putting just a "Controversies" header is not a good practice; further I feel it would be better off as a level 3 header under "Commercial wing (Antrix Corporation)" since the scam relates to it. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Other

 * There are cn tags in the section "Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)" and "Planetary sciences and astronomy". &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ugog Nizdast, I made some changes to the article according to your suggestions. I can't find a source for some content in "Planetary sciences and astronomy" section, should I leave it or remove it? I think it's best to remove it because it's not related to ISRO. Thank you -  Supdiop  ( T 🔹 C )  18:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ugog Nizdast, I removed it. Are we ready to start the process? -  Supdiop  ( T 🔹 C )  08:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Those removals look fine to me, but I've not read the whole article yet. Do you have with you any of the offline sources mentioned?
 * Unfortunately, I'm not here to review the article as I don't feel confident enough to, rather I'll try to help out here in whatever way I can. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Images
This is not good. File:GSLV1.jpg, File:SARAL.jpg, File:Gslv-mkiii-x-14.jpg and File:ISRO-sre02.jpg seem to fail WP:NFCC. They are fair use and don't have a free license. Per that policy, and WP:GACR criteria 6a, they need a proper rationale. I don't think you can have that for these images, since FU images usually are justifiable for cases like movie posters, dead subjects (where free images are impossible) etc. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll need some time to look into this. &#x2011;Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Passer by comments: FU is difficult to argue for this page. I will start by removing images which don't even have template rationale stated for this page. Then we can move on to check if they at all are suitable for any article on en.wiki. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

S band scam coverage
Note: this concerns even the article Antrix Corporation. I think the amount of detail given to it is way beyond WP:DUE weight in both articles. I also object to it's placement unders a labelled "Controversy" section, which is discouraged here.


 * 1) Coverage: For instance in the Antrix page, look at the size of the it versus the rest of the article. There are five paras against just three one-para sections? This has to be trimmed and I'm willing to settle on which details should be included and which shouldn't. Even more trimming for the ISRO page.
 * 2) Placement: Per WP:SUMMARY, we summarise the daughter article in the section, and since the scam concerns Antrix more than ISRO, it belongs to Antrix section in the ISRO main page, not in a Csection.

In short, how it was in this version of the page. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Criticism does state that we should usually not have a section titled "Controversies", and it is better to present both positive and negative content together. But it also states (in WP:CORG): "Many organizations and corporations are involved in well-documented controversies, or may be subject to significant criticism. If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism – however within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS." I think this is such an example case.


 * Regarding the Antrix content in the ISRO article, I think it is better to present it in tabular form in the "Organisation structure and facilities" section, to maintain consistency with the rest of the centres' information that is also presented in tables in that section. Also, only definining or purpose-related information (and not that of any controversies or scams) should be given in those tables.


 * Regarding length: If the Antrix Corporation article has more controversy content than non-controversy content, then I think the non-controversy (positive or neutral) content may be increased, instead of decreasing the controversy (negative) content. Anyway, the article should mention all important information, and the S-band spectrum scam was important and notable.
 * --Engineering Guy (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This isn't criticism, criticism would be Criticism of Wikipedia. This is a controversial incident which can always be integrated back into the article. The main concern here is WP:UNDUE coverage, to both this and the daughter article. I'm not saying don't mention it at all, but to trim it and move it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

GA nom
Now that, the GA nominator, has been WP:SITEBANed, I wonder if there is any point in letting the article wait in the GA review queue. The article is huge and might require a lot of work to pass it and even review would need good amount of time. So should we remove it from the queue until some other editor wishes to continue the work and nominate it? Pinging a big lot of admins involved in blocking case. . §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I doubt there's a prospect of Supdiop's return any time soon, as it's a community ban and a CU block, and they were caught socking again as recently as this week. If anyone wants to spend the time it might be worth doing the GA review anyway - either someone will step up to fix any issues raised, or they can be a useful guide to future editors on what is needed to get to GA. This seems preferable to just removing the nom - we could do this regarding a banned editor but Supdiop doesn't own this or any other article, and if it's close to GA then better we push it over the line.


 * Of course this is just one opinion, other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Organisation structure and facilities
Per WP:WHENTABLE, the current table format with an elaborate explanation for each entry is unneeded. It could be better off in another subarticle. I propose to move the content to ISRO facilities. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Indian Space Research Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.isro.org/space_science/images/BalloonXrayStudies.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150530141559/http://www.asianage.com/india/after-mars-isro-aims-venus-probe-2-3-years-335 to http://www.asianage.com/india/after-mars-isro-aims-venus-probe-2-3-years-335

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

About ISRO for country
ISRO[indian space Research Organisation] ISRO is main space research center in India.indian space organisation is for to research space what happens in the space for know this,organisation is taking many projects orn activities towards space.24 April 2008 india get sucsses to launch 10 sattlites in one roket and this sattlites are working in the space. this organisation are taking one step towards the Mars,the 'MANGALYAN'is going to search Mars What happens on the Mars? india getyting sucsses to know mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.13.9 (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

❌ Doesn't make sense to put these on wikipedia Daiyusha (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Deep Space Exploration
I added a section 'Deep Space Exploration' which seems the right place to mention the Mars Orbiter Mission. It's not a 'Future Mission.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi bbsr (talk • contribs) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Extraterrestrial exploration covers that, otherwise we would need one section each for Chandrayaan(ET but not DS) and MOM(ET and DS) Daiyusha (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian Space Research Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5qF7qFllk?url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html to http://www.spaceflightnow.com/tracking/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120705114650/http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missions/list_of_satellites/sara_general.html to http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/satellite_missions/list_of_satellites/sara_general.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indian Space Research Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140927110830/http://dos.gov.in/structure.aspx to http://www.dos.gov.in/structure.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225165210/http://necouncil.nic.in/index3.asp?sslid=72&subsublinkid=153 to http://necouncil.nic.in/index3.asp?sslid=72&subsublinkid=153
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025031443/http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/Oct22_2008.htm to http://isro.org/pressrelease/Oct22_2008.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140705040049/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-s-first-nano/1232324.html to http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-s-first-nano/1232324.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20100718020446/http://www.space-travel.com/reports/ISRO_To_Put_Unmanned_Test_Capsule_In_Orbit_By_2013_999.html to http://www.space-travel.com/reports/ISRO_To_Put_Unmanned_Test_Capsule_In_Orbit_By_2013_999.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indian Space Research Organisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102125008/http://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c9/PSLV-C9.aspx to http://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c9/PSLV-C9.aspx
 * Added tag to http://www.isro.org/Launchvehicles/GSLVMARKIII/mark3.aspx
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120908092933/http://www.eoportal.org/directory/pres_Kalpana1MetSat1MeteorologicalSatellite1.html to http://www.eoportal.org/directory/pres_Kalpana1MetSat1MeteorologicalSatellite1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721162412/http://www.indiaonline.in/Profile/Science/research/Space-Technology.aspx to http://www.indiaonline.in/Profile/Science/research/Space-Technology.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513040202/http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Chennai/Isro-successfully-tests-indigenous-cryogenic-engine/Article1-854840.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Chennai/Isro-successfully-tests-indigenous-cryogenic-engine/Article1-854840.aspx
 * Added tag to http://www.isro.org/pslv-c22/c22-status.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121012091048/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/uop-part-of-isros-bio-experiment-in-space/447572/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/uop-part-of-isros-bio-experiment-in-space/447572/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

ISRO Motto
Article currently states following to be ISRO's motto, it was part of banner image but didn't feature on 'About Us' page before website update around December 2014.

''Space technology in the Service of humankind.

After the website update and subsequent domain shift to '.gov.in' though, we have seen a change in ISRO's vision statement and old 'motto' is replaced by following.

''Harness space technology for national development, while pursuing space science research and planetary exploration.

This is very significant shift and appears to have so far gone unnoticed. I suggest we replace the 'Motto' with a Vision Statement if these can be considered official statements of much significance. Ohsin 05:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Isro satellites launched by foreign agencies
How about moving this subsection to a new page Draft:ISRO Satellites Launched By Foreign Agencies and providing a link to the new page in see also? 2442tom (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this kind of content is very specific and very hard to maintain. Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

INCOSPAR was independently established by VIKRAM SARABHAI.
Why people are crediting the then PM ? DMET8202 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jnehru.jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Astrosat-1 in deployed configuration.png
 * GSLV Mk III M1, Chandrayaan-2 - Front view of GSLV Mk III M1 vehicle at the Second Launch Pad 01.jpg
 * GSLV Mk III M1, Chandrayaan-2 - Vikram lander mounted on top of orbiter.jpg
 * PSLV C42 on the First Launch Pad.jpg

Documenting the Exoworlds mission
I propose a new article for the planned Exoworlds mission by ISRO. Vaibhavafro (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would love to do it, but since last month I have found no information about it, except that it would "explore outside the solar system". Rowan Forest (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been allocated a token sum in recent budget but no further details. Ohsin  17:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019
"Change

Budget ₹12,473.26 crore (US$1.8 billion) (2019–20 est.)

to

Budget ₹10,252 crore (US$1.425 billion) (2019–20 est.)"

The ISRO's budget for 2019-2020 is 10,252 Crores, not 12,473.26 Crores as cited in the page.

As the citation shows, the 12,473.26 Crores number was only a demand from the Department of Space, NOT the government's final approval. Moreover, the current citation mentions the budget for Department of Space as a whole and ISRO is one branch of the department only. Thus, we cannot equate the department's budget with ISRO's budget. 108.160.230.109 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this correction. DoS has many wings and ISRO is just one of these. ~¶iyush¶ercev 06:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyush00India (talk • contribs)

Some lines in the paragraph above information box should be adjusted below.
I think some lines in the paragraph above 'information box' should be adjusted below, because it create a sense of boredom when anyone visits ISRO's page on wikipedia. There should be only some lines of information at starting of the page, then the 'information box' and after this the paragraph giving preliminary information about ISRO. So from the line containing 'INCOSPAR' till the end (above 'information box') should be adjusted below the information box. It will make page look more neat and clean and pretty informative. The readers will sense an easy through information about ISRO at starting. ~¶iyush¶ercev 07:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyush00India (talk • contribs)
 * I agree in that the introduction is too long, and it is not meant to list all the facilities, satellites and records established. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ That crash course on mission history seems unnecessary. We can do without those geo-locations, plus VSSC is not "spaceport" and thumba is merely a sounding rocket range. Needs explicit mention of ISRO being a civilian space program as well. Ohsin  23:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"Indian space programme" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian space programme. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 17 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"India's space program" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect India&. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Indian space program" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian space program. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Indian Space Program" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indian Space Program. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Space programme of India" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Space programme of India. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Space program of India" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Space program of India. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Statistics

 * Total Launches: 76 in 42 years = 1.8 launches per year
 * Success: 65 (85.5%)
 * Failure: 11


 * Max launches in one year: 7 launches in 2016 and 2018
 * Max successful launches in one year: 7 launches in 2016 and 2018
 * Max satellites on a single launch: 104 satellites on a PSLV rocket, on 15 February 2017 - mission PSLV-C37


 * 28 consecutive successful launches between these two failures: 25 Dec 2010 - GSLV Mk I - and - 31 Aug 2017 - PSLV-XL
 * 8 consecutive successful launches between these two failures: 29 Sep 1997 - PSLV - and - 10 Jul 2006 - GSLV Mk I

Barecode (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Water
"We totally found it first; we just didn't tell anyone before you published your own finding" is not credible. 108.246.204.20 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

इस्रो
क्लिप पिन करण्यासाठी, जोडण्यासाठी किंवा हटवण्यासाठी संपादन आयकन वापरा. 2402:8100:303E:6EC3:FD04:7146:483B:EF21 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Budget section.
I am removing section named 'Budget for the Department of Space' as not only it lacks any citations, it is also not giving the budget in terms of percentage of total GDP or making any adjustments, giving false sense of growth. For example see this presentation about this recent study titled 'The Space Economy of India: Its Size and Structure' @36m33s where they show negative growth in budget in terms of percentage of GDP after adjustments in last 20 years. Ohsin 03:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is an alternative using data from archives of Dept. of Space, Details of Demand of Grants and www.Indiabduget.gov.in
 * No adjustments have been made and it is simple plot of annual Dept. of Space budget as percentage of Total Expenditure. Can this be used?
 * No adjustments have been made and it is simple plot of annual Dept. of Space budget as percentage of Total Expenditure. Can this be used?

Re-including [|budget section] with data and citations along context of annual GDP and Total Expenditure figures. Please cross-check data for any errors. Perhaps it can be expanded a bit more and then it can have its own page like Budget of NASA. I am interested in overall economic impact of DoS budget and criticism of it if any. Also useful would be any data points on how much budget is projected by DoS versus how much is allocated like recent comments by ISRO Chairman that it should be around Rs 20,000-50,000 crore compared to Rs 15,000-16,000 crore at present. . This note by parliamentary standing committee on "Department of Space had projected a demand of Rs.24,686.20 crore for BE 2020-21, against which an amount of Rs.13,479.47 crore has been allocated." is very significant data point and more like it would be great addition. Ohsin 19:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

ISRO SHLLV
User:Aman.kumar.goel, ToI is only quoting Sivan and hence is WP:PRIMARY for the claim being made. And as you are aware by now, interpreting claims from ISRO officials is prone to pitfalls. Without a secondary source, we cannot know what the actual situation is. Company insiders claim a lot of things from marketing, PR or other motivations that are WP:UNDUE here. While there is some value in knowing what the near future targets are, such far out plans, which may or may not happen, need much more than a chairman's sound bite. Hemantha (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ISRO is the biggest authority of space technology of India and if their announcement has got coverage from secondary source like TOI then it needs to be covered here. If their statement is really that unbelievable then you are welcome to cite a source that would question the claim and then we can assess if inclusion is still warranted. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 14:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion whenever citing such claims it should be noted whether that project is approved by government or not. ISRO has for many years made such claims and sure they could do studies into it but a super heavy lifter design would not get funds unless there is a clear purpose for it i.e a payload of that magnitude should also be there in development. Such announcements are not much more than for keeping news cycle going and there is not much substance to them, so I agree with User:Hemantha.  Ohsin  18:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ( hey, I recognize that name - Ohsin, and thank you for the extremely valuable and expert posts elsewhere on the web. ) The point about payloads is quite apt. Announcements from ISRO are insufficient here, User:Aman.kumar.goel. Would I be incorrect in presuming the silence to be agreement? Hemantha (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed per above. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted the same from SHLLV where you'd restored it. Hemantha (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial exploration
Doesn’t Extraterrestrial exploration fall under Planetary sciences? At least that’s how it works at NASA. 105.12.7.235 (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc . talk  13:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Indian Space Research Organisation → ISRO – All Space Agencies have their initials as the title and not the full name Theknowhowman (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The name of the page should be changed to ISRO instead of Indian Space Research Organisation as all the major National Space agenices have their initials instead of full name and it is more known compared to the full name.Theknowhowman (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per the guidelines at WP:RT, WP:UCRN, and WP:NAMECHANGES. Cheers! -- WellThisIs TheReaper  Grim 19:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Roscosmos, KazCosmos, Canadian Space Agency, Australian Space Agency, UK Space Agency and other agencies, are not initials-only page names -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Both Roscosmos and KazCosmos are the names which are commonly known in their countries. For the rest of the space agencies they don't have launch capability and are not that well known as NASA, JAXA, ISRO and Roscosmos Theknowhowman (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Roscosmos and KazCosmos are short forms not full names Theknowhowman (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Space Agency is a founding and full partner in the International Space Station and the Lunar Gateway, with modules (the major arms) for both stations, so yes, it's just as major as the European Space Agency,, whose article is also not initials-only. Roscosmos and KazCosmos are not initials-only; they may be short forms, but they are not initials. You stated that all major space agencies are initials, which isn't the case. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Abbreviations should only be used in very limited circumstances. This is not one of them. The Royal Air Force, for instance, is far, far better known as the RAF, but we still use the full name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support google news search results for "ISRO" are around 12000 and "Indian Space Research Organisation" are around 8000, Roscosmos NASA JAXA, almost all major space agency's title is in short form and about the other example in the comment of above ip user, all these space agencies didn't have a specified name such as Canadian Space Agency, Australian Space Agency, UK Space Agency they simply use "space agency with their country name" so they are noncomparable to this. per WP:PRECISION WP:TITLECON WP:COMMONNAME. NewIndia30 (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Just want to point out that space agencies with 3 words such as the European Space Agency, Canadian Space Agency, Australian Space Agency, and co. are fully spelt out whereas major space agencies with 4 words aren't (ex. NASA, JAXA, Roscosmos). Just pointing it out there. Cheers! -- WellThisIs TheReaper  Grim 00:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment And neither Roscosmos nor United Kingdom Space Agency is located at pagenames composed only of initials. So 4-word agencies don't always use initials-only. (and KazCosmos in its long form Kazakh name is a 5-word agency) -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Unreasonable opposition Seems like you are opposing just for the sake of opposition, Roscosmos is the WP:COMMONNAME and official name is "Государственная Корпорация "Роскосмос" which means "State Space Corporation" and its pet name is Roscosmos which is quite similar to using the word "space agency" with country name such as Canadian Space Agency. Either it is 4-word or 5-word every space agency is using initial-only name, expect the ones with the word "space agency" in their name with country name sych as UK Space Agency which is not the case with ISRO.
 * In the end i would like to see some of your arguments with "wikipedia policy mentions" supporting your thoughts. NewIndia30 (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, in the end my argument is that the statement that major space agencies exist at pagenames that are initials is wrong. And that Roscosmos is not a set of initials. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I was talking about "major space agencies". You say that the UKSA is a major space agency? Check list of government space agencies. The UK doesn't have neither launch capabilities, extraterrestrial exploration capabilities, nor does it have human spaceflight capabilities. I feel that a "major space agency" would have to check off having either extraterrestrial exploration and human spaceflight capabilities before being called a "major space agency". You may also have a better look here at Forbes. Good day, cheers! -- WellThisIs TheReaper  Grim 21:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Roscosmos is a major agency, the article is called "Roscosmos", Roscosmos is not a set of initials. CNSA is a major space agency, CNSA is located at China National Space Administration, "China National Space Administration" is not a set of initials. Your opinion of major space agency would thus be restricted to Russia, China, and NASA, so only a 33% choice of having initials-only article name for such a space agency. (has its own beyond-Earth probes, has its own astronauts, has its own space rockets, has its own launch sites) If you include all the International Space Station and Lunar Gateway partners, then: European Space Agency is a major agency, the article is at "European Space Agency", European Space Agency is not a set of initials. Canadian Space Agency is a primary partner on the ISS and Gateway (and the Shuttle program), and its article is located at Canadian Space Agency, Canadian Space Agency is not a set of initials. Yes, JAXA is a set of initials, however, NASDA, the immediate predecessor to JAXA and the initial partner in the ISS, is located at National Space Development Agency of Japan which is not a set of initials. Of the ESA partners: CNES is located at initials, but DLR is located at German Aerospace Center (not matching its initials), and ASI is located at Italian Space Agency (not matching its initials). KazCosmos is the operator for the launch site for major Roscomos launches, has had cosmonauts, its article is located at "KazCosmos", KazCosmos is not a set of initials. If it is just about extraterrestrial probes, then the United Arab Emirates Space Agency has had a Mars and a Moon probe, and its article is not located at initials; unlike the UK Space Agency, its article isn't even called "UAE Space Agency". -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Out of the 5 major National Space Agencies(NASA, JAXA, Roscosmos, China National Space Administration, Indian Space Research Organisation) which has launch capability and has sent extraterrestrial probes, 3 have common names as their title. European Space Agency is a multi-national space agency and so it can be excluded in the list of national space agency category. If you further shrink this category to include nations that also have human spaceflight category, then out of three space agencies(NASA, Roscosmos and China National Space Administration)two have common names. In the case of European Space Agency, France is the one of the biggest contributors to its budget and the name of its space agency CNES is not full name, rather it is commonly known name. ISRO is more commonly known among most people and also as per the guidelines of Wikipedia WP:COMMONNAME, it is acceptable. Theknowhowman (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where do I mention that these "major" space agencies should be shortened to initials? I'm simply stating that it should be shortened to something that is more known to the public per WP:COMMONNAME and the guidelines at WP:UCRN. My prior comment was simply trying to correlate that 3-word agencies weren't shortened whereas 4-word ones were. -- WellThisIs TheReaper  Grim 20:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The page name should be changed to ISRO because that is a more consistent and convenient name. Also most major space organizations have page names with abbreviations, like for example, NASA. EarthTeen (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ISRO is a more common, convenient, and consistent name. (I forgot to write 'support' in my previous reply lol) EarthTeen (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved the facilities section to ISRO facilities
I have moved the facilities section in ISRO to ISRO facilities page. I have included the major facilities which are under the control of ISRO on this page.

Theknowhowman (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Changes to ISRO page
I have noticed you have raised a banner to remove content. The only content which has a similarity to any other website is the vision and mission of the ISRO page which came under ISRO section. As this is an organization, I can only write the mission and vision of the above-mentioned organization in nearly the same way, but I have tried to change it slightly from the original. if you feel like it is infringing content, you can remove it. There is no other infringing content remaining on the page, you can remove the banner.

The other point I need to mention is that Exploratory Mission should come under planetary sciences as it is the study of planets not just Earth. I have developed this page in a similar format as NASA, as I found it to be organized in a better format. On that page, you can see the Management section(which tells about the organization), coming before the History section.

Theknowhowman (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC) (moved by DaxServer) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, If there are any other infringing material you are finding in this page, you should mention it here, so that the necessary can be done.
 * Otherwise if there are no other infringing content, then remove the banner. Theknowhowman (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Budget of ISRO...
Can we remove the budget segment cause technically it is budget of Department of Space, not budget of ISRO. Standing Alone (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It should not be removed as ISRO uses the majority stake of the DOS's budget. — Akshadev™  🔱 03:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Budget Moved from ISRO to Department of Space article
The budget which was shown in ISRO belongs to Department of Space, so it should be included in Department of Space article and not in ISRO. I have moved the budget from this article to Department of Space article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theknowhowman (talk • contribs) 10:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Standing Alone, point noted. — Akshadev™  🔱 05:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup
I just took out over 6k bytes of stuff by automated cleanup using edit toolbar and AutoEd. Is that normal for 3 time GAN article? The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023
change "(translated as “mooncraft” in Sanskrit)" to "translated as “mooncraft” in English" Hriziya (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  14:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)