Why Government Reluctance to Fund Innovation is Hindering NavIC’s Progress

MUMBAI: Up in the skies, something important is happening. Satellites with big dreams of national pride and technology orbit the Earth as part of NavIC, India’s navigation system. This project was meant to rival America’s GPS, helping ships, planes, and troops navigate without relying on foreign technology.

Initially, there was a lot of optimism surrounding NavIC. However, things have taken a turn. Now, NavIC is facing several issues, including failures of atomic clocks and propulsion problems. These technical setbacks raise the question: why has something so promising encountered so many obstacles? More importantly, is there a chance for NavIC to bounce back?

The problems with NavIC aren’t just about faulty equipment. They point to deeper issues within India’s approach to science and technology. A well-known science journalist has observed that policymakers often overlook the importance of investing in research and development. They focus on immediate returns, which science doesn’t usually provide.

Consider how science traditionally works. It’s not like a quick business investment that pays off tomorrow. The benefits are often indirect and may take years to become evident. For instance, the GPS technology many of us rely on today came from years of military research, often funded without a clear idea of what benefits would arise. This pattern is similar across various innovations, like the internet and medical advancements. Countries that invest in science without expecting quick returns tend to emerge stronger and more self-sufficient.

Take China, for example. They took a leap of faith by pouring resources into scientific research, not knowing precisely which projects would succeed. This strategy has paid off, with China now pushing boundaries in space exploration and technology. Their secret? A commitment to science that doesn’t demand immediate results.

In contrast, India has been cautious. For years, there’s been a promise to invest in science “when we can afford it.” But this creates a paradox: how do we get economically stronger without investing in the very thing that fosters growth? Currently, India allocates just 0.6% of its GDP to scientific research, while China spends over 2.5%, and the U.S. about 3%. Moreover, much of India’s research funding is tied to defense, limiting its potential for civilian innovation.

This is where ISRO, India’s space agency, comes in. ISRO is recognized as a remarkable institution, achieving incredible milestones with a budget much smaller than NASA’s. Still, it faces significant challenges due to resource limitations. Think of ISRO as a chef trying to create a gourmet dish with only a few ingredients; the results can only be so impressive with limited resources.

The saga of NavIC illustrates these systemic issues. It faced major setbacks after atomic clocks on several satellites failed, and efforts to fix them have lagged. A new satellite meant to improve the system encountered propulsion troubles and now orbits inefficiently. Each setback compounds the difficulties, especially when funding is tight.

Despite these struggles, NavIC is not a complete failure. It still offers basic navigation services, and ISRO is working to launch new satellites with better technology. The critical question remains: will India learn from the challenges of NavIC? Will there be a shift in how we prioritize and fund scientific research? Recognizing that investing in science is crucial for growth, rather than a luxury, is essential for India’s future development.

Source link

Satellites,NavIC,satellite system,atomic clocks,propulsion glitches,tangled web