Which of the following countries is planning to launch its Moon Mission Space Vehicle named as Moon-LITE ? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Which of the following countries is planning to launch its Moon Mission Space Vehicle named as Moon-LITE ?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->The launch of which advanced communication satellite failed as the geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) exploded mid-air moments after it took off from the Sriharikota rocket launch centre on December 25,2010?....

QA->India"s Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) which was launched from the Second Launch Pad at Satish Dhawan Space Centre SHAR (SDSC SHAR), Sriharikota on August 27, 2015?....

QA->Name theSatellite Launch Vehicle that was used to launch the advanced weathersatellite, INSAT-3DR by ISRO.....

QA->Name the first moon rover mission of China, which is the world"s third lunar rover mission following the US and the former Soviet Union decades ago:....

QA->Whichspace tech firm has signed a verified commercial launch contract with IndianSpace Research Organisation (ISRO) on December 1, 2016, for its mission to landa spacecraft on the moon with an aim to win Google Lunar XPRIZE?....

MCQ->Which of the following countries is planning to launch its Moon Mission Space Vehicle named as Moon-LITE ?....

MCQ-> Read the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:Due to increased competition, Electro Automobiles, the Indian subsidiary of Robert Automobile Company (RAC) reported lower sales and profits. RAC expects its new model Limo, developed especially for value conscious customers of India and China, would revive its fortunes. In order to prevent customers from buying competing products, RAC announced the launch of Limo six months ahead of schedule. Unrest in its Indian supplier resulted in delayed delivery of essential components to its main plant. Hence, Limo was launched on schedule only in China. Within a short span, Limo captured 30% of the Chinese market , which was 200% higher than expectation. Indian customers were becoming increasingly restless because they couldn't get a Limo in India. Electro’s dealers were worried, customers might switch to other cars.The indian subsidiary is concerned that the delay in launching the product will give undue advantage to some competitor. The organization was considering the following strategies to keep customers engaged with the company:1. Ask the dealers to encourage their prospective customers to seek similar products from the competition, rather than wait for Limo’s launch. 2. Suggest the dealers to accept booking for Limo, announcing the launch within six months of booking, while in reality plan to keep postponing launch indefinitely. 3. Run full page advertisements in the papers, every month, to keep the interest in the model from ebbing, with no mention of the launch date. 4. Import parts from outside India, and launch the product, at a 30% premium, planning a relaunch a few years later of the indianized version. 5. Go against its worldwide policy of non-interference in supplier plants, and announce a hefty bonus to the employees of the supplier with a hope to temporarily bring the plant to life. 6. Promise the supplier plant (that has some unrest) a higher margin share of about 5% compared to what was shared earlier, with an eye to stem the unrest. Which of the following combination of responses above, will most likely keep the prospective customers engaged with the company and not jump to some competitor’s product?....

MCQ->Which of the following statements are correct regarding GSLV-H. a) It was launched from Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota b) It was launched from Kaurou launch base French Gaiana c) Launch vehicle was Delta-IV d) Launch vehicle was Ariane-5....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. The past quarter of a century has seen several bursts of selling by the world’s governments, mostly but not always in benign market conditions. Those in the OECD, a rich-country club, divested plenty of stuff in the 20 years before the global financial crisis. The first privatisation wave, which built up from the mid-1980s and peaked in 2000, was largely European. The drive to cut state intervention under Margaret Thatcher in Britain soon spread to the continent. The movement gathered pace after 1991, when eastern Europe put thousands of rusting state-owned enterprises (SOEs) on the block. A second wave came in the mid-2000s, as European economies sought to cash in on buoyant markets. But activity in OECD countries slowed sharply as the financial crisis began. In fact, it reversed. Bailouts of failing banks and companies have contributed to a dramatic increase in government purchases of corporate equity during the past five years. A more lasting fea ture is the expansion of the state capitalism practised by China and other emerging economic powers. Governments have actually bought more equity than they have sold in most years since 2007, though sales far exceeded purchases in 2013. Today privatisation is once again “alive and well”, says William Megginson of the Michael Price College of Business at the University of Oklahoma. According to a global tally he recently completed, 2012 was the third-best year ever, and preliminary evidence suggests that 2013 may have been better. However, the geography of sell-offs has changed, with emerging markets now to the fore. China, for instance, has been selling minority stakes in banking, energy, engineering and broadcasting; Brazil is selling airports to help finance a $20 billion investment programme. Eleven of the 20 largest IPOs between 2005 and 2013 were sales of minority stakes by SOEs, mostly in developing countries. By contrast, state-owned assets are now “the forgotten side of the balance-sheet” in many advanced economies, says Dag Detter, managing partner of Whetstone Solutions, an adviser to governments on asset restructuring. They shouldn’t be. Governments of OECD countries still oversee vast piles of assets, from banks and utilities to buildings, land and the riches beneath (see table). Selling some of these holdings could work wonders: reduce debt, finance infrastructure, boost economic efficiency. But governments often barely grasp the value locked up in them. The picture is clearest for companies or company-like entities held by central governments. According to data compiled by the OECD and published on its website, its 34 member countries had 2,111 fully or majority-owned SOEs, with 5.9m employees, at the end of 2012. Their combined value (allowing for some but not all pension-fund liabilities) is estimated at $2.2 trillion, roughly the same size as the global hedge-fund industry. Most are in network industries such as telecoms, electricity and transport. In addition, many countries have large minority stakes in listed firms. Those in which they hold a stake of between 10% and 50% have a combined market value of $890 billion and employ 2.9m people. The data are far from perfect. The quality of reporting varies widely, as do definitions of what counts as a state-owned company: most include only centralgovernment holdings. If all assets held at sub-national level, such as local water companies, were included, the total value could be more than $4 trillion. Reckons Hans Christiansen, an OECD economist. Moreover, his team has had to extrapolate because some QECD members, including America and Japan, provide patchy data. America is apparently so queasy about discussions of public ownership of -commercial assets that the Treasury takes no part in the OECD’s working group on the issue, even though it has vast holdings, from Amtrak and the 520,000-employee Postal Service to power generators and airports. The club’s efforts to calculate the value that SOEs add to, or subtract from, economies were abandoned after several countries, including America, refused to co-operate. Privatisation has begun picking up again recently in the OECD for a variety of reasons. Britain’s Conservative-led coalition is fbcused on (some would say obsessed with) reducing the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Having recently sold the Royal Mail through a public offering, it is hoping to offload other assets, including its stake in URENCO, a uranium enricher, and its student-loan portfolio. From January 8th, under a new Treasury scheme, members of the public and businesses will be allowed to buy government land and buildings on the open market. A website will shortly be set up to help potential buyers see which bits of the government’s /..337 billion-worth of holdings ($527 billion at today’s rate, accounting for 40% of developable sites round Britain) might be surplus. The government, said the chief treasury secretary, Danny Alexander, “should not act as some kind of compulsive hoarder”. Japan has different reasons to revive sell-offs, such as to finance reconstruction after its devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011. Eyes are once again turning to Japan Post, a giant postal-to-financial-services conglomerate whose oftpostponed partial sale could at last happen in 2015 and raise (Yen) 4 trillion ($40 billion) or more. Australia wants to sell financial, postal and aviation assets to offset the fall in revenues caused by the commodities slowdown. In almost all the countries of Europe, privatisation is likely “to surprise on the upside” as long as markets continue to mend, reckons Mr Megginson. Mr Christiansen expects to see three main areas of activity in coming years. First will be the resumption of partial sell-offs in industries such as telecoms, transport and utilities. Many residual stakes in partly privatised firms could be sold down further. France, for instance, still has hefty stakes in GDF SUEZ, Renault, Thales and Orange. The government of Francois Hollande may be ideologically opposed to privatisation, but it is hoping to reduce industrial stakes to raise funds for livelier sectors, such as broadband and health. The second area of growth should be in eastern Europe, where hundreds of large firms, including manufacturers, remain in state hands. Poland will sell down its stakes in listed firms to make up for an expected reduction in EU structural funds. And the third area is the reprivatisation of financial institutions rescued during the crisis. This process is under way: the largest privatisation in 2012 was the $18 billion offering of America’s residual stake in AIG, an insurance company.Which of the following statements is not true in the context of the given passage ?
....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below: Each of the six persons, P, Q, R. S. T and U has travelled to different number of countries. R has travelled to more number of countries than only S and T. Q has travelled to more number of countries than U but less than P. T is not the person who has travelled to least number of countries. The one who has travelled to second highest number of countries has travelled to 8 countries. The one who has travelled to the least number of countries has travelled to only two countries.Who amongst the following has possibly travelled to 11 countries?
....