> this is a true measure of technological advancement of a nation

That's an interesting point and worth further analysis. But, just to probe a little, that would imply that US and USSR were technically equally advanced in the 60s.

Is that true?

Moreover, what about nations that have not invested much in space at all, but otherwise are probably doing well from technical advancement standpoint.

This is certainly a measure, but is it the measure?

Modi is definitely investing in space, with the manned mission in a couple of years. I just hope this doesn't impact that.

The USSR was the first to land on the moon and send images back (in 1966), but ever since the US landed people there, they were technologically behind, albeit not very far behind. They could have done it, but with Americans flying there twice a year, the race was already lost. So they sent some large robotic landers instead (Lunokhod 1 and 2), the kind that are the size of a VW beetle and are designed to survive the night. Unlike manned missions, which lasted at most 3 days, Lunokhod 2 was active on the surface of the moon for 4 months, traveled 42km, and sent back 80000 pictures.

> Modi is definitely investing in space, with the manned mission in a couple of years. I just hope this doesn't impact that.

Are you serious? All these projects were funded since UPA2 time. This craft was to go in 2013 but Russia backed out so postponed to 2016.

Same story with Mars Orbiter Mission

I don't think Modi has any money left after his disasterous economic policies which have brought an economic slowdown. Also if he is funding space missions they'll fly in 2025 or so because building those missions takes time

It is probably a lot easier to do it today than it was 60 years ago when no one had done it. I think it is possible even for a well-funded private company (like Spacex) to at least come close if they thought it was worth it

You’re saying the Japan is less technologically advanced than the US was in 1966? That seems like a stretch.

Overall, quite possibly yes. They do consumer electronics quite well, but their space program is a bit of a joke.

Their trains kick the US' ass. So this metric is BS.

Only because trains can't be operated at a profit in the US. We build planes instead, which go faster, and make money.

Your statement about trains is not correct. US rail is optimized for transporting goods rather than people and overall does a good job. It is also quite profitable. For example, the Union Pacific 10-K shows a healthy profit for FY 2018. [0]

One recent stat I found claimed that in the US 43% of freight travels by rail whereas in the EU it's only 10%. [1] European highways are consequently choked with trucks, something you notice pretty quickly if you drive in countries like Germany. It's easy to overlook, though, when traveling in one of their nice passenger trains. :)

[0] https://www.up.com/cs/groups/public/@uprr/@investor/document... [1] https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=11847

Congratulations, you've slayed a strawman. It's pretty clear both the OP and myself were talking about passenger trains, which in the US can't be operated at a profit.

It's apples to oranges. The US rail network is optimized to solve another problem. The evidence I've seen indicates that US freight transport by rail is among the most efficient in the world. It's hard to adduce it as an example of technical failure.

Even on your terms of debate I think you need to cite evidence of overall profitability of passenger trains in other countries. Deutsche Bahn (DB) makes some money but depends on substantial subsidies from the German government. [0] Wikipedia shows that most passenger rail seems to be heavily subsidized, though interestingly not Japan. [1]

[0] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-deutsche-bahn-investment/g...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies

What a shifting of goalposts. It's not Japan's problem that you can't make it profitable.