India's ISRO conducts key crew escape test for human space mission
english.manoramaonline.com
english.manoramaonline.com
Unclear if this was intentional — I've yet to see a statement from ISRO mentioning it.
https://www.isro.gov.in/flight-test-of-crew-escape-system-te...
1. Some technologies used in space flight are under severe sanctions from other developed nations, to slow down the development of missile technology of lesser developed nations (developed in the context of military technology). There is a lot of impetus to research and develop those technologies in-house. This leads to a huge gain to India in terms of technical skill, research infrastructure, research know-how, experience, etc. This leads to "down-the-hill" technological advantages in related fields (for ex. medical, industry, etc.). Since the research is public domain, related technological improvements are available for cheap. (A recent example is the opening up of Li-Ion battery technology by ISRO for interested parties in the Industry)
2. Launching a rocket, especially a manned one, is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a huge amount of work that goes into making that happen, a lot of which is Research & Development. Rocket technology directly leads to better and advanced missile technology. This ensures (though some may argue otherwise) a credible deterrent to enemies, ensuring longer periods of peace. This directly improves lives of the citizens.
3. There are numerous examples of technology developed to enable space flight trickling down to medical and industrial uses.
In fact, the same can be seen in Formula 1 races. Many technologies we take for granted in modern mass market vehicles (ABS immediately comes to mind, several safety features, crumple zones, etc) are the result of extensive developments in F1 racing scenes.
Even in management, having two teams competing with each other to solve a particular problem, almost always leads to an explosion of ideas and generally a better final solution to the problem at hand. Case in point is in the development of the iPhone, etc.
> This leads to "down-the-hill" technological advantages in related fields (for ex. medical, industry, etc.)
That's not clear at all, and even if it does happen, it is usually more of a happy accident than a regular thing. An effective counter-argument is that funding those fields directly should then be as effective or more.
> Since the research is public domain
I could not find any indication this is the case, but I'm limited to English. They do have a list of technologies that they have transferred on their website, but seems to indicate you need a license, and hasn't been updated since 2016: https://www.isro.gov.in/isro-technology-transfer/technologie.... I'll refrain from judging how applicable and ground-breaking those technologies are.
> This ensures (though some may argue otherwise) a credible deterrent to enemies, ensuring longer periods of peace. This directly improves lives of the citizens.
That it "directly improves lives of the citizens" is purely propaganda, and easily disproven by the number of peaceful nations that do not have space programs/long-range missiles. Looking at history, disarmament is more effective for peace than an arms race.
> There are numerous examples of technology developed to enable space flight trickling down to medical and industrial uses.
It should be easy to list them then. It is true that e.g. NASA has successfully spun off several technologies used daily and in the medical field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies / https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2017/index.html (as an aside, NASA's publications are a joy).
On the other hand, the ESO seems, well, less impressive. Although at least their page on technology transfer is somewhat comprehensible by a lay person: https://www.eso.org/public/industry/techtrans/develcontract/
> In fact, the same can be seen in Formula 1 races. Many technologies we take for granted in modern mass market vehicles (ABS immediately comes to mind [...]
Ironically, ABS + F1 isn't a great example of this. ABS' history is interesting and varied, but the most apt analogue might be Concorde, which used one of the first - if not the first - electronic anti-lock breaking system to avoid needing braking parachutes. (Concorde of course being funded by the British and French governments. Whether the money invested into Concorde was worth it, hard to say.)
In terms of improving peoples lives, I imagine F1 is probably closer to a colossal waste of money than a net gain for humanity (I would argue the sport agrees based on e.g. the proposed budget cap). But that doesn't make great PR. (Also doesn't mean F1 should be banned, just that it isn't a great example.)