Anyways, the last point, handing cash out to people, will essentially not work for the exact same reason: logistics. Who will do the handing out? The same agencies that are supposed to give grains at subsidized rates? How well is that working?
Not that I disagree with the broader point, but a number of countries have had electronic benefit transfers for years (possibly decades). Perhaps this wasn't feasible on the scale of India in the past - I don't know - but it is much more feasible now with the widespread use of mobile phones. There is probably already an Indian equivalent to the m-pesa mobile-based money transfer system in eastern Africa.
There is a growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of direct, "cash"-based transfers in reducing poverty, from Joia Mukherjee (MIT Poverty Lab) and others. EBT and mobile transfers have the added benefit of significantly reducing opportunities for graft.
> Did you know we spend about 38 times as much on our armed forces as our space agency?
I know India spends a lot on defense, which is just as questionable.
I would argue that even our defense spending is less questionable than many developed countries. We have two hostile neighbors with whom we've fought 5 wars (give or take) since 1947, none of which (from the history books I know) we initiated (well maybe 1). Not a justification, but the war-wariness (deliberately spelled that way) is understandable.
The point I wanted to make is "feed your hungry" is a lazy and uninformed position to take when you hear about India doing science. If you read about $1000 toilet seats, by all means, fire away.
How high-cost is too high? How much impact is necessary in order to greenlight a project, according to you?
Your objections are particularly nonsensical because the article doesn't mention the cost of the project anywhere. You've reflexively decided that it's $BIG_NUMBER and it's wasteful. With practically no information. (It will cost in the region of $250m, FYI)
How do you even know it will be costly (relative to the magnitude of the project)? We did launch the Mars mission pretty cheap you know :-) (yes, I know it's easier to launch cheaper when you pay Indian salaries, so don't bring that up)
EDIT: Big scientific discoveries haven't happened by the balance of probability. Many new advances come from unexpected places, by obscure scientists doing crazy-sounding things. No expert can declare with 100% certainty that something is "unlikely to yield a positive economic impact".
This is my last comment on the topic. It sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind and nothing can convince you to see the other side. Good luck.
Your logic is simplistic: those people don't have money, so they shouldn't be spending it on things I consider frivolous (for someone in their situation).
You're failing to consider the following:
1. How does a poor country become rich? Why by developing its science and technology, of course (well technically, by becoming more productive, but you know what I'm saying). If we don't develop our own science and tech, we're going to be relegated to manufacturing textiles and outsourced software projects pretty much forever. Doing those things hasn't eliminated hunger so far, so why expect anything different in the future?
2. How much aid does India really receive? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_foreign_ai...) it ranked 18th on the list in 2012. Sounds high, until you consider that the normally-considered-developed countries of Israel and Turkey are 4th and 5th on the list. On a per-capita basis, I'm willing to bet it is even lower
3. How much do you really know about how the Indian government spends its money? Did you know we spend about 38 times as much on our armed forces as our space agency? Like any other large government, we waste money on some areas and allocate and spend it wisely in others. Research that produces results is never a waste and many Indian government agencies (ISRO and DRDO) have a solid track record in this regard.
4. There are immediate benefits to science and tech spending to even poor Indians. For example Oceansat-2, a remote sensing satellite launched by ISRO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceansat-2). Per Wikipedia, it's used for coastal zone planning and identification of fishing areas, among other things. Other satellites provide weather information, which again is used by fishermen, many of whom are poor. Not to mention all the spin-off technology from defense and other research (handwaving, but I can't be bothered to look up citations right now). EDIT: ISRO also _makes_ money by taking on satellite launching contracts. Their commercial arm Antrix Corp made $33m profit in 2013-2014 (if I'm doing the conversion right: http://www.antrix.gov.in/pdf/ANNUAL_REPORT_2013_2014_English...)
5. Like another commenter has mentioned elsewhere, we produce surplus food. The reason it doesn't get to all the hungry people who need it is pretty much the same reason people go hungry in developed countries: market failures and government aid not reaching the right people at the right time. These aren't things that are solved by diverting money away from research (unless it's to hand out straight cash to poor people, I guess, which almost no country does).
There's always a rash of commenters saying "feed your hungry" whenever they read a story about India doing science. I hope I've reduced their numbers by one at least.