Congratulations to our scientists and engineers for furthering India's indigenous space programme. May ISRO continue to master new technologies, and continue to conquer new frontiers. Chandrayaan-2 is unique because it will explore and perform studies on the South Pole region of lunar terrain which is not explored and sampled by any past mission.
This mission will offer new knowledge about the Moon. Chandrayaan-2 has been successfully launched. I extend my heartiest congratulations to our countrymen on this momentous achievement. Our scientists deserve a special compliment, their achievement has enhanced country's pride. Special moments that will be etched in the annals of our glorious history! The launch of Chandrayaan2 illustrates the prowess of our scientists and the determination of crore Indians to scale new frontiers of science. Every Indian is immensely proud today!
In other tweet, PM Modi tweeted, "Efforts such as Chandrayaan2 will further encourage our bright youngsters towards science, top quality research and innovation. Our existing knowledge of the Moon will be significantly enhanced. The exercise could take up to five days. Following a successful landing, Rover Pragyaan would roll down the platform and begin mapping the lunar surface. Sivan said that all the preparatory works regarding the launch have been completed and technical snags that developed in the first attempt have been rectified.
The Chandrayaan-2 was scheduled to be launched on July However, less than an hour before the launch, the mission was aborted after a technical snag was detected.
- My Pen Pal, Santa.
- Das Kapital - Capital: Best Online Edition.
- Reading fiction can help you be more open-minded and creative.
- Observe: Understand the interaction through the customer’s eyes;
- LPPDE Europe 12222 Malmö.
There is a lot of scientific testing to be done regarding the mission. Scientists around the world are looking forward to the launch," said Sivan. It will be the first Indian expedition to attempt a soft landing on the lunar surface. However, the flight was postponed after a technical snag was detected an hour prior to the rocket lift-off.
You are now subscribed to our newsletters. Parliament congratulates scientists on Chandrayaan-2 launch Parliament on Monday congratulated ISRO scientists for the successful launch of Chandrayaan-2, saying the achievement represents a golden chapter in the country's history.
Chandrayaan 2: HRD encourages students to take up courses in aerospace engineering Lauding the successful launch of Chandrayaan-2, the HRD Ministry on Monday encouraged students to take up careers in aerospace engineering and said its 'Swayam' portal will offer online courses on the subject from July Members welcomed the announcement by thumping their desks.
Salute to the team who have spent countless days ensuring the success of Chandrayaan2 isro — Akshay Kumar akshaykumar July 22, Internet Not Available. Such founders will often bring in new CEOs themselves and be more likely to work with their boards to develop new, post-succession roles for themselves. Choosing between money and power allows entrepreneurs to come to grips with what success means to them. Founders who want to manage empires will not believe they are successes if they lose control, even if they end up rich.
Conversely, founders who understand that their goal is to amass wealth will not view themselves as failures when they step down from the top job. Most entrepreneurs want to make pots of money and run the show. Consider: To make a lot of money from a new venture, you need financial resources to capitalize on the opportunities before you. To remain in charge of your business, you have to keep more equity.
But that means fewer financial resources to fuel your venture. So, you must choose between money and power. Begin by articulating your primary motivation for starting a business. Then understand the trade-offs associated with that goal. And each choice comes with a trade-off.
Building Positive Relationships at Work
Startup founders who give up more equity to attract cofounders, key executives, and investors build more valuable companies than those who part with less equity. And the founder ends up with a more valuable slice of the pie.
- South Orange (Images of America)!
- Wizard At Large: Magic Kingdom of Landover Series: Book 03?
- Fun Stuff to do Around the Campfire Volume #3.
- Robot Uprisings.
- How to Beat Low-Limit Poker.
On the other hand, to attract investors and executives, you have to cede control of most decision making. To retain control of your new business, you may need to bootstrap the venture—using your own capital instead of taking money from investors. Every would-be entrepreneur wants to be a Bill Gates, a Phil Knight, or an Anita Roddick, each of whom founded a large company and led it for many years. However, successful CEO-cum-founders are a very rare breed. When I analyzed American start-ups that sprang up in the late s and early s, I discovered that most founders surrendered.
Other researchers have subsequently found similar trends in various industries and in other time periods. The change in leadership can be particularly damaging when employees loyal to the founder oppose it. In fact, the manner in which founders tackle their first leadership transition often makes or breaks young enterprises. The transitions take place relatively smoothly if, at the outset, founders are honest about their motives for getting into business.
They do. However, a paper in the Journal of Political Economy and another two years later in the American Economic Review showed that entrepreneurs as a class make only as much money as they could have if they had been employees. In fact, entrepreneurs make less, if you account for the higher risk. As I studied the choices before entrepreneurs, I noticed that some options had the potential for generating higher financial gains but others, which founders often chose, conflicted with the desire for money.
Few have been both.
If You Want to Get Rich
The surprising thing is that trying to maximize one imperils achievement of the other. Entrepreneurs face a choice, at every step, between making money and managing their ventures. Founders are usually convinced that only they can lead their start-ups to success. At the start, the enterprise is only an idea in the mind of its founder, who possesses all the insights about the opportunity; about the innovative product, service, or business model that will capitalize on that opportunity; and about who the potential customers are.
The founder hires people to build the business according to that vision and develops close relationships with those first employees. The founder creates the organizational culture, which is an extension of his or her style, personality, and preferences. From the get-go, employees, customers, and business partners identify start-ups with their founders, who take great pride in their founder-cum-CEO status. Their attachment is evident in the relatively low salaries they pay themselves.
That was so even after taking into account the value of the equity each person held.
Chandrayaan-2 launch highlights : In leap for ISRO, India launches lunar mission
Many entrepreneurs are overconfident about their prospects and naive about the problems they will face. They invite family members and friends, angel investors, or venture capital firms to invest in their companies. In doing so, they pay a heavy price: They often have to give up total control over the enterprise. Once the founder is no longer in control of the board, his or her job as CEO is at risk. But, paradoxically, the need for a change at the top becomes even greater when a founder has delivered results.
Let me explain why. The first major task in any new venture is the development of its product or service. They think investors should have no cause for complaint and should continue to back their leadership. At that point, leaders face a different set of business challenges.
The founder has to build a company capable of marketing and selling large volumes of the product and of providing customers with after-sales service. The organization has to become more structured, and the CEO has to create formal processes, develop specialized roles, and, yes, institute a managerial hierarchy.
A technology-oriented founder-CEO, for instance, may be the best person to lead a start-up during its early days, but as the company grows, it will need someone with different skills. Indeed, in analyzing the boards of privately held ventures, I found that outside investors control the board more often where the CEO is a founder, where the CEO has a background in science or technology rather than in marketing or sales, and where the CEO has on average 13 years of experience.
Thus, the faster that founder-CEOs lead their companies to the point where they need outside funds and new management skills, the quicker they will lose management control. Success makes founders less qualified to lead the company and changes the power structure so they are more vulnerable.
Investors wield the most influence over entrepreneurs just before they invest in their companies, often using that moment to force founders to step down. In other Seven news, the company named former Onebox. One Silicon Valley? In such cases, investors allow founder-CEOs to lead their enterprises longer, since the founder will have to come back for more capital, but at some point outsiders will gain control of the board. Whether gradual or sudden, the transition is often stormy. In , for instance, when a California-based internet telephony company finished developing the first generation of its system, an outside investor pushed for the appointment of a new CEO.
The founder refused to accept the need for a change, and it took five pressure-filled months of persuasion before he would step down. Used to being the heart and soul of their ventures, founders find it hard to accept lesser roles, and their resistance triggers traumatic leadership transitions within young companies. On the one hand, they have to raise resources in order to capitalize on the opportunities before them.
If they choose the right investors, their financial gains will soar. My research shows that a founder who gives up more equity to attract cofounders, nonfounding hires, and investors builds a more valuable company than one who parts with less equity.