The humble son of a farmer from Sarakkalvilai village in Tamil Nadu’s Kanyakumari dis trict, Dr. K. Sivan as Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) chairman was leading the Chandrayaan-2 mission to moon. Sivan studied in a Tamil medium government school. After graduating from S.T. Hindu College in Nagercoil, Sivan completed a Master’s in Engineering from IISC in 1982. In 2006, he received Ph.D in Aerospace Engineering from IIT Bombay. Sivan is the first graduate in his family. His brother and two sisters were unable to complete higher education due to their poverty. ”When I was in college, I used to help my father in the f ield. That was the reason he got me admitted in a college near our house.” Sivan told TOI, ”Only when I had completed my B.Sc (Mathematics) with 100% marks his mind changed.” Sivan said he had spent his childhood days without a shoe or sandal. ”I continued wearing vesti (dhoti) till college. I wore pants for the first time when I entered MIT.” He joined ISRO in 1982 and worked on almost all rocket programmes. Before taking charge as an ISRO chairman in January, 2018, he was the director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC) which develops rockets. He is known as ISRO’s ’Rocket Man’.

Answer the following questions in few words. (One or two words) :
What is Dr. Sivan known as ?
In which subject Dr. Sivan scored 100% marks in B.Sc. ?
When did Dr. Sivan join ISRO ?
In which space centre Dr. Sivan was the director ?
Step 1: Understanding the Questions:
The task is to provide short, precise answers to four factual questions based on the passage.
Step 2: Finding the Answers in the Passage:
- : The last sentence of the passage states, "He is known as ISRO's 'Rocket Man'."
- : The passage quotes Dr. Sivan: "...completed my B.Sc (Mathematics) with 100% marks..."
- : The passage mentions, "He joined ISRO in 1982..."
- : The passage says, "...he was the director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC)..."
Step 3: Final Answers:
ISRO's 'Rocket Man'
Mathematics
1982
Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC)



When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
In the following figure \(\triangle\) ABC, B-D-C and BD = 7, BC = 20, then find \(\frac{A(\triangle ABD)}{A(\triangle ABC)}\). 
The radius of a circle with centre 'P' is 10 cm. If chord AB of the circle subtends a right angle at P, find area of minor sector by using the following activity. (\(\pi = 3.14\)) 
Activity :
r = 10 cm, \(\theta\) = 90\(^\circ\), \(\pi\) = 3.14.
A(P-AXB) = \(\frac{\theta}{360} \times \boxed{\phantom{\pi r^2}}\) = \(\frac{\boxed{\phantom{90}}}{360} \times 3.14 \times 10^2\) = \(\frac{1}{4} \times \boxed{\phantom{314}}\) <br>
A(P-AXB) = \(\boxed{\phantom{78.5}}\) sq. cm.