Talk:Indian Space Research Organisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject India / Education (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Education in India workgroup (marked as Top-importance).

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Indian Space Research Organisation:

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Not informative enough[edit]

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.-- (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Requirements of this article[edit]

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)

Balance of article[edit]

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. (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. (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. (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.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Shorten 'Applications' sub-article[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


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.


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)

No criticism section?[edit]

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? (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticising ISRO for the sake of crticising is not the job of a wikipedia article.--PremKudvaTalk 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. (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?). (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. (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. (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

More info on how it is run[edit]

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 (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Associated Scandals[edit]

[2] 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 (talkcontribs) 12:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 08:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging of sections[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Deep Space Exploration[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian Space Research Organisation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 10:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. On first blush, I would like to note that this issue will certainly prevent this article's promition to GA:

  • This article has numerous uncited paragraphs, sections and tables.

I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide a more thorough assessment. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

  • Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
  • If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
  • Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. The prose is very clear, respects copyright laws, and spelling is correct. However minor grammatical concerns (especially run-on sentences) persist, and overuse of acronyms impacts on readability
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Chunks of the article remain unsourced.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. See above
2c. it contains no original research. Is not OR.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Covers the main points
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Will check images tomorrow.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.


  • This article is very thorough and very well-written, and will certainly get to GA status.
  • I strongly suggest that where a term is provided alongside an acronym, unless in a single subsection, the acronym is removed. For example: Indian National Satellites (INSAT) for communication services and Indian Remote Sensing (IRS)" -> "Indian National Satellites for communication services and Indian Remote Sensing." Wikilinks can be used to disambiguate. Acronyms clutter text and impact on readability, are confusing and can be inferred.
    • I also strongly advocate for removal of acronyms in titles.
  • There are some small grammar corrections that are required (mostly run-on sentences)
  • A large amount of text is uncited, which is unfortunate because the quality of the text is so good, and lack of verifiability is a key factor that would prevent this article from being promoted.

Goals and objectives[edit]

  • variants "Dr APJ Abdul Kalam" and "A. P. J. Abdul Kalam" both used; suggest standardise Yes check.svg Done
  • This sentence "Hennock etc. hold that India also connects space exploration to national prestige, further stating: "This year India has launched 11 satellites, including nine from other countries—and it became the first nation to launch 10 satellites on one rocket."[9] " has a dead link, meaning that it is now unsourced.
  • Suggest wikilink the services here, to enhance readability: "Indian National Satellites (INSAT) for communication services and Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) satellites for management of natural resources; also, Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) "
  • "former president, A. P. J. Abdul Kalam " -> remove comma
  • "DRDO " is not defined.

Launch vehicle fleet[edit]

  • See the initial comment about acronyms. These acronyms are used once. Suggest remove all acronyms in the section and subsection titles and in the introductory paragraph, and only retain acronyms where it is directly stated "commonly known by its abbreviation [x]"
  • "abbreviation SLV or SLV-3 (comma) was"
  • "usually known by its abbreviation ASLV (comma)"
  • "Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle " again, I advocate removing acronym from title and the (IRS) and (GTO) acronyms.

Earth observation and communication satellites[edit]

  • This section suffers from lack of sources.
  • "overall coordination and management of INSAT system" -> "of the INSAT system"
  • "the Secretary-level " -> "secretary-level"
  • "The initial versions are composed of the 1 (A,B, C, D) nomenclature" “composed of" > "are known by"; "(A,(space)B, C, D)"
  • "application including OceanSat, CartoSat, Resource Sat" -> "and include... and Resource(nospace?)Sat"
  • "Radar Imaging Satellites.(space)RISAT-1 "
  • "PSLV.(space)RISAT." Also request that you use the full title for PSLV as for a casual reader the use of the acronym is very confusing.
  • "Synthetic Aperture Radar " suggest wikilink.
  • "operates RISAT-2 (comma)"
  • "ISRO on 1 July 2013, at 23:41Hrs IST launched from Sriharikota the First Indian Navigation Satellite the IRNSS-1A. The IRNSS-1A was launched aboard PSLV-C22. The constellation would be comprising 7 satellites of I-1K bus each weighing around 1450 Kilograms, with three satellites in the Geostationary Earth Orbit(GEO) and 4 in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit(GSO). The constellation would be completed around 2015.[23]" needs copyedit for grammar and sentence structure, and use of less acronyms.
  • "Atal Bihari Vajpayee " suggest wikilink and capitalise Prime Minister Yes check.svg Done
  • ”UTC.SARAL or Satellite with ARgos and ALtiKa “ suggest use bold instead of the garrish caps: "SARAL (Satellite with argos and altika)"
  • "ISRO has also successfully launched the Indo-French satellite SARAL on 25 February 2013, 12:31 UTC.SARAL or Satellite with ARgos and ALtiKa is a cooperative altimetry technology mission. It is being used for monitoring the oceans surface and sea-levels.AltiKa will measure ocean surface topography with an accuracy of 8 mm, against 2.5 cm on average using current-generation altimeters, and with a spatial resolution of 2 km.[27][28]" requires copyediting for grammar.

I will continue my review of the second-half of this article tomorrow. LT910001 (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, so as to not spend my time fruitlessly, I will wait for some sign of editing before I continue. LT910001 (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
There's been no action in a week. This article needs significant copy-editing before it can reach GA status. Would encourage renomination when the issues noted above and in the assessment table are addressed. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)