Cataloguing reasons for AGNI & GSLV launch failures

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Post by geeth »

Here is another piece of information from ISRO Site...

Quote:

The thrust of the liquid engines used in the strap-on stages is precisely controlled by a set of regulators. Detailed analyses have indicated that in S4 engine the thrust control was not effective. Instead of stabilizing at 5.85 MPa (Mega Pascal) chamber pressure, it reached 7.11 MPa at 2.8 sec. This was much beyond the design limits and the engine failed at 0.2 sec after lift-off, that is 5 sec after its ignition.

Unquote:

From above, it can be seen that the chamber pressure went up by more than 20% within 2.8 Secs of ignition. Why the sensor could not detect and report it to the central computer, or why the computer failed to abort the mission (since it occured within 4 Secs of ignition) is something to be analysed - IMHO.

The window of 4 secs is essentially given for the computer to check all parameters and make a decision whether to go ahead or not.
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Post by krishnan »

As i can see it, problem accured after it took off, now can u abort a launch after SLV has already taken off? Or am i getting things wrong
:-?
geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1196
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Post by geeth »

>>>As i can see it, problem accured after it took off, now can u abort a launch after SLV has already taken off? Or am i getting things wrong

From the report published by ISRO, it appears the problem occured at 2.8 Sec, before the lift-off (after 4 sec).

Whether the sensor could transmit the anomaly, or, after the anomaly was transmitted the master control computer did act in time to abort the mission (obviously not accomplished) is the question.
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

geeth wrote: From the report published by ISRO, it appears the problem occured at 2.8 Sec, before the lift-off (after 4 sec).

Whether the sensor could transmit the anomaly, or, after the anomaly was transmitted the master control computer did act in time to abort the mission (obviously not accomplished) is the question.
I believe, this is where the overall control system shd have kicked in. So Arun_S's analysis was correct that the control system had a bug. IMHO, this should have been detected and flight aborted before lift-off if the control system worked per expectations.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

SriKumar wrote:I wonder if they were able to determine what specifically was wrong with this part, and why. I think that should be a part of the analysis.
Pls see the 5 linkes in Ramana's google url. In perticular the IBN video where the wrong part was identified as off by 1 mm (taper) and that pushed the part a little further than design.

So after the uncontrolled pressure build up the veheicle was still on ground (and the Solid stage not yet ignited and could be saved) thus they mention there is room to improve in the pre-lift checkout code of the software.

And the inner control loop modified for faster response and better error handling to prevent even the pressure excursion in the gas generator.
SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2243
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Post by SriKumar »

Saw the links. Quote below from the TOI link. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... 964385.cms
The diameter of the propellant regulator, he said, exceeded design specification by 1 mm. The product delivered was 17 mm in diameter instead of 16 mm .

It seems to suggest that the actual dimensions were known at the time of delivery?? They should re-design some of these parts or else Murphy's law will happen.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Gap Proved Fatal For India's Geo Launcher Probe
by Staff Writers
Bangalore (PTI) Sep 07, 2006

A defect in a device meant to regulate propellant flow led to malfunctioning in the fourth strap-on stage, causing the failure of the July 10 GSLV mission that was to put India's heaviest satellite so far into orbit, a report of the 15-member Failure Analysis Committee said.

The committee, headed by senior Isro scientist K Narayana, made the report public on Wednesday in the presence of Isro chairman G Madhavan Nair and a host of other senior Isro officials from around the country.

The device was made by a private company that supplies parts to Isro. Outlining the findings and factors that caused the GSLV crash, Nair told reporters the device in question was a propellant regulator.

The diameter of the propellant regulator, he said, exceeded design specification by 1 mm. The product delivered was 17 mm in diameter instead of 16 mm.

This gap proved fatal for the GSLV mission, the chairman explained. As the regulator was bigger, there was a larger flow of propellant into a gas generator.

The extra flow created higher operating pressure within the generator. This high pressure resulted in reduced water flow into the generator and consequently to a very high gas temperature.

The high pressure and high gas temperature ultimately led to turbo pumps that feed propellant to the engines stopping. That's when one of the engines lost thrust.

The engine was one of the four liquid propellant strap-on ones which take the rocket up and help guide it...
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

I doubt that this is true picture...

1mm difference in a dia of 16 mm, that is 6.25% deviation towards the plus size, what was the tolerence on this component.

How did it QC in the first place?

Even a simple go no go guage would be enough to test it, what about the finish smooth ness in the bore, ?

was a its taper nozle? is 1 mm difference at the lowest of dia or at highest of dia?

that is 39.37 thous of an inch....
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

The discrepancy might have been accepted by the ISRO resident rep based on similar % analysis. The fact that they got the documented dimensions of the part causing the failure is superb. I submit that it was the acceptance of the discrepant part that is the problem. The fact that the dimensions were noted shows that the vendor system is good.
Last edited by ramana on 11 Sep 2006 19:39, edited 1 time in total.
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

ramana wrote:The discrepancy might have been accepted by the ISRO resident rep based on similar % analysis. The fact that they got the documented dimensions of the part causing the failure is superb. I submit that it was the acceptance of the discrepant part that is the problem. The fact that the dimensions were noted shows that the vendor system is good.
Ramana, vendor system is good in what? documentation or QC? Since a deviation of 6.25% was passed after duly noting the deviation points to a hugely misplaced focus on documenting than actual QC. I wonder if even the basics of precision engineering were followed...
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Post by rgsrini »

Ramana, vendor system is good in what? documentation or QC? Since a deviation of 6.25% was passed after duly noting the deviation points to a hugely misplaced focus on documenting than actual QC. I wonder if even the basics of precision engineering were followed...
I hope you realize that these are the same folks who have been successfully launching rockets for many years. They are honest enough to comeout and say what went wrong and what do we do... "You guys are idiots... don't even know the basics of engineering, which even a lathe shop owner will be aware of..."


Added later: I have added the quotes to the last statement to remove further misunderstanding based on Shiv's advise below.
Last edited by rgsrini on 11 Sep 2006 21:33, edited 1 time in total.
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

rgsrini, I know ISRO has been doing that round the year and previous launches with the same component were successful. Thhat's why this is even more galling. The excuse would work, if it is a brand new design and lots of technologies/ untested components being tested together.

A deviation of 6+ % for such a vital component can not be swept under the carpet saying it was a human error. Hope you realise that..
You guys are idiots... don't even know the basics of engineering, which even a lathe shop owner will be aware of...
I don't claim to be a know-all. May be you can teach some fundamentals of Precision Engg. Waiting for your enlightening comments.
SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2243
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Post by SriKumar »

John Snow wrote:I doubt that this is true picture...

1mm difference in a dia of 16 mm, that is 6.25% deviation towards the plus size, what was the tolerence on this component.

How did it QC in the first place?

was a its taper nozle? is 1 mm difference at the lowest of dia or at highest of dia? that is 39.37 thous of an inch....
I am wondering if it is DDM. The video clip from CNN-IBN shows about 5-10 seconds of the press conference where Nair (?) talks about the dimensions of the part, but he does not state things with 100% certainity, not in that brief clip. If a larger time-span video clip is available any place, that would clarify.

1. Only TOI carried this point, no other news article has it.

2. If the cause is as clear-cut as in the TOI article, i.e. 16 mm vs. 17 mm, why is it not mentioned in the FAC report.

3. But on the other hand, Nair actually mentioned dimensions in the press conference, so FAC probably must have looked at any available documentation they had on this part; and commented based on that. (I mean, they are quoting actual numbers, so I have to assume they were not speculating about this dimensions thingy...)
John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Post by John Snow »

rgsrini wrote:
Ramana, vendor system is good in what? documentation or QC? Since a deviation of 6.25% was passed after duly noting the deviation points to a hugely misplaced focus on documenting than actual QC. I wonder if even the basics of precision engineering were followed...
I hope you realize that these are the same folks who have been successfully launching rockets for many years. They are honest enough to comeout and say what went wrong and what do we do? You guys are idiots... don't even know the basics of engineering, which even a lathe shop owner will be aware of...
Thanks for certifying evrybody to be an idiot, and certificate from an eminently qualified one puts us in yor league...

the discussion is about how a component could get into a assembly with such a deviation from desired dimension.

was it sabotage?
was it crack in system which it fell through?
is it ok to have such deviation in the physical component but make adjustment in the flow control software to account for the deviation?

Idiot like me strives to raise the level incomptence
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

rgsrini wrote: You guys are idiots... don't even know the basics of engineering, which even a lathe shop owner will be aware of...
Mind your language boss. Some of us are not engineers or lathe shop owners - so there is no need for YOU to judge idiocy and by implication mean that you as judge of others' idiocy are NOT yourself an idiot. You are opening the door for others to sit on some other judge's seat and say why you might actually be an idiot yourself - seeing how easy it is getting onto this idiot game.

Completely unnecessary.

You need to remove that remark from your post and I will remove this post. TIA
Vidyarthi
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 26
Joined: 16 Aug 2006 15:46
Location: Thiruvananthapuram
Contact:

Post by Vidyarthi »

John Snow wrote:
1mm difference in a dia of 16 mm, that is 6.25% deviation towards the plus size, what was the tolerence on this component.
Yes! what was the specified tolerance on this dimension? Assessing difference in terms of percenatage is misleading.

It is not easy to specify and validate tolerance. Too tight could create
difficulties in manufacture. Too loose could lead to lower performance and more seriously to lower reliability.
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Yes! what was the specified tolerance on this dimension? Assessing difference in terms of percenatage is misleading.
Thanks Vidyarthi. We often miss the obvious parameter that is relevant.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Post by rgsrini »

Shiv Wrote:
rgsrini wrote:

You guys are idiots... don't even know the basics of engineering, which even a lathe shop owner will be aware of...


Mind your language boss. Some of us are not engineers or lathe shop owners - so there is no need for YOU to judge idiocy and by implication mean that you as judge of others' idiocy are NOT yourself an idiot. You are opening the door for others to sit on some other judge's seat and say why you might actually be an idiot yourself - seeing how easy it is getting onto this idiot game.

Completely unnecessary.

You need to remove that remark from your post and I will remove this post. TIA

Please read my post again. I am not calling anyone an idiot. I am saying that other posters are calling our scientists idiots just because they announced that the one of the parts might have been outside the tolerance range.
Last edited by rgsrini on 11 Sep 2006 08:58, edited 1 time in total.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Post by rgsrini »

John Snow wrote:
Thanks for certifying evrybody to be an idiot, and certificate from an eminently qualified one puts us in yor league...


Another misunderstanding... Please read my post as

"What do we do.... We call our scientists idiots and assume that they don't even have basic engineering language..."


If it is still not clear I will edit my original post....
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Post by shiv »

rgsrini wrote:
Please read my post again. I am not calling anyone an idiot. I am saying that other posters are calling our scientists idiots just because they announced that the one of the parts might have been outside the tolerance range.
Fair enough - but your post would have indicated that meaning clearly if you had put the "you guys are idiots.." remark in quotes.
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Post by krishnan »

You guys are idiots... don't even know the basics of engineering, which even a lathe shop owner will be aware of...
Most of us here known english well , and u expect us to believe ur explanation , that statement clearly proves what u said

:roll:

Nice try though ,
ShibaPJ
BRFite
Posts: 146
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 21:21

Post by ShibaPJ »

rgsrini,
Before going off half-cocked, you should have properly read my post and other posts before that. We were discussing the sub-assembly, assembly and related QC process and how could this component be certified. Can you point out where did I call the scientists as 'idiots'?

Arun_S, Ramana, John Snow & Others,
For a 1 mm increase in dia (from 16 mm), the surface area increases about 13%. Certainly the resultant increase in propellant inflow could not be handled or mitigated inflight, so IMHO tolerance had to be pretty close to zero (my assumptions).

Also, A3 also was reported to have a problem with the 2nd-stage separation. Was it something similar? There have been no updates on it so far. :roll:
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

A-3 has no liquid fuel stage, thus comparision is not relavent.

Agni-III flight assessment stays put.
rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Post by rgsrini »

Shiv Wrote:
Fair enough - but your post would have indicated that meaning clearly if you had put the "you guys are idiots.." remark in quotes.
Krishnan Wrote:
Most of us here known english well , and u expect us to believe ur explanation , that statement clearly proves what u said
Let me put an end to this unnecessary controversy... I will add the quotes to my original post as Shiv had suggested.

All I want to say was "Give due credit to our scientists and don't run them down just because they had indicated that incorrect tolerance might have been the reason for failure". Let us keep the focus on the discussion.
JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Post by JCage »

krishnan wrote:
You guys are idiots... don't even know the basics of engineering, which even a lathe shop owner will be aware of...
Most of us here known english well , and u expect us to believe ur explanation , that statement clearly proves what u said

:roll:

Nice try though ,
No. Read it in context and he is correct. See he says "and what do we do", followed by you are idiots...he just forgot the quotes.
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Post by Shankar »

I know i am sticking my neck out on this but what the heck we have been already termed idiots by some

some questions

- how can the dimension variation by one mm on the plus side make the propellent regualator feed so much propellent to the gas generator so as to increase the chamber pressure by nearly 20 percent 58 to 71 mpascal or therabout .Assuming all other parameters were ok the increase in flow cross section at the outlet of the pressure regualator by 1/16th of perfect value cannot increase the liquid propellent flow by the factor required to pressurise the chamber by extra 20%

- how can the turbo pump fail when extra gas is being fed to run it even though at higher temperature and about 20% extra pressure .

- why did the strap on chamber failed at 71 mpascal they are supposed to stand atleast 50% extra pressure at the service temperature

The whole purpose of the regulator is to control the propellent flow to the gas generator depending on the chamber pressure which is used to create the feed back signal .Once the pressure exceeded the set value by almost 20% the regualator control unit diaphragm or valve tip should have automatically closed the orifice slowing the flow of propellent to the gas generator and therby automatically closing down the pressure build up which ultimately lead to the catastophic failure of the chamber itself .

So my stupid understanding the situation is this -it was a failure of the pressure control system itself not just the oversizingof the regualator nozzle which might have been due to signal failure from flight computer,programme fault or excessive slow response of the chamber pressure control system when faced with a sudden un anticipated surge in pressure .The nozzle oversize by one mm is just a very small part fo the probelm .
Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5882
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Post by Dileep »

pressure build up which ultimately lead to the catastophic failure of the chamber itself
PArdon me, but did the chamber fail? If the chamber fails catastrophically, we would have seen it as an explosion. IIRC, we didn't.

While 1mm variation on a 16mm machined part is unheard of, I would imagine the control system could have happily handled it. If it doesn't, I would blame the control system onlee.

Isn't it better to blame a supplier than your own software team?

I think it is plausible that the pressure ran up because the control system (sensor? transmitter? Actuator?) failed, and the failsafe set at the max value kicked in and shut it down. So, essentially, none of the previous conclusions changes.
sbadru
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 08 Sep 2006 10:24

When are the follow-up launches?

Post by sbadru »

I guess the GSLV re-launch would not be on the cards for some time now.
But Agni-III should be re-tested a few more times now. Any idea when the next tests are going to be?
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Post by Shankar »

why did the strap on loose thrust
-there was no propellent flow to the combustion chamber
-why ther was no propellent flow
- the turbo pump failed to deliver the requisite quantity of propellant
-why the the turbo pump failed to deliver the propellent
- there was not enough gas pressure available from the gas generator to drive the pump
-why there was not enough gas pressure available from the generator
- the pressure regualtion system that controls the flow of prpellant to gas generator to create the desired pressure whcih in its turn run the high speed turbo pum failed

so far ok -now why did the regualator failed

-official reason oversize nozzle by 1 mm dia causing 20% overpressure
and over heating

The point is the nozzle size do not control the pressure the actuator and feed back line electrica/pneumatic and the final control element does it acting in conjunction along with inputs from the on board computer .Just increase in size of the regualator nozzle by 1 mm can not cause loss of thrust on a starp on engine it can only happen if the gas supply to the turbo pump fails significantly causing it to cavitate and loose prime or stop rotating altogether .We need to look closely at any available video where the defective strap on exhaust is shown - it should reduce in length erratically to indicate possible cavitation in the feed turbo pump or have gone off altogether to indicated uncommanded engine shut down due to fuel starvation

Can anyone post the launch video
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Shankar wrote:-official reason oversize nozzle by 1 mm dia causing 20% overpressure
and over heating

The point is the nozzle size do not control the pressure the actuator and feed back line electrica/pneumatic and the final control element does it acting in conjunction along with inputs from the on board computer .Just increase in size of the regualator nozzle by 1 mm can not cause loss of thrust on a starp on engine it can only happen if the gas supply to the turbo pump fails significantly causing it to cavitate and loose prime or stop rotating altogether .We need to look closely at any available video where the defective strap on exhaust is shown - it should reduce in length erratically to indicate possible cavitation in the feed turbo pump or have gone off altogether to indicated uncommanded engine shut down due to fuel starvation

Can anyone post the launch video
You forgot to mention that the oversupply of fuel could not be matched by available flow of water to keep cool the gas generator, hence the temprature rose well above design, causing overpressure. This is the primary failure mode.
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Post by Shankar »

Accepting the logic does it mean the turbine jammed up due to overheating of the bearings ressulting from higher driving gas temperature causing an unintended engine shut down

continuing earlier line of logis how much extra liquid flow can be caused by a 6% increase in dia (definitely within acceptable norms) and consequent increase in flow cross section cause so as to make the available temperature control system in gas generator totally inadequate at the operating pressure
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Shankar wrote:continuing earlier line of logis how much extra liquid flow can be caused by a 6% increase in dia (definitely within acceptable norms) and consequent increase in flow cross section cause so as to make the available temperature control system in gas generator totally inadequate at the operating pressure
IMHO this is 3rd order effect that you are seeking. If you are looking for a high level empirical answer, I am sorry to say you will find none, because cooling effect of water is heavily dependent on actual mechanical design; unless one is thick into detail design of Vikas ... .. . . .

At a higher level one can understand that if a engine is designed for certain combustion rate and water flow is designed for 100% power with max flow limit set to some higher value (safety margin) the moment the combustion rate hit a value that exceeds available water flow rate required to match higher combustion rate, the temperature rise on metal surface will be dramatic, only an extremely fast control loop can prevent such excursion within available thermal inertia budget of pressure chamber of gas generator.
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Post by Shankar »

But then isnt the solid motor ignition is initiated only after the thrust level in all four starpons have stabilised at near design value.Since in this case overflow of propellant caused by 6% incerased cross section at 60 bar pressure approx would have ressulted in continious increse in turbine speed and consequent increase in thrust level of the affected strapon till the turbo pump stopped altogether by overheating or overspeed or both causing sudden drop in chamber prssure initiating the unfortunate chain of events.Since this happened about 2.8 seconds after the solid ignition the thrust level in starpon s must have stabilised before that for the ignition command to be given to solid .

if this line of thinking is right then the oversized nozzle theory can be questioned since the nozzle oversize did not develop in the 3-4 seconds of defective strap on operating preceding failing to develop required thrust .Thats why my thinking is it was a control problem software/control elements or failure of the pressure feed back loop which is responsible
arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Post by arun »

[quote]Strap-on engine caused GSLV failure

Satyen Mohapatra

New Delhi, November 3, 2006

The S4 strap-on engine whose malfunction caused the failure of GSLV rocket on July 10,2006 off Sriharikota may have “totally disintegrated.â€
Sonugn
BRFite
Posts: 446
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 12:03
Location: DeceptyKon Workshop

Post by Sonugn »

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1061882

[quote]About 550 divers and four ships — ORV Sagar Kanya, CRV Sagar Purvi, CRV Sagar Paschimi and a chartered vessel, Akademik Boris Petrov — were pressed into the operation. “We have recovered all parts of the strap-on motors, except for a small electronic device having computer,â€
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

Next Agni-3 flight towards latter half of first quarter next year.
Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Post by Vick »

Arun_S wrote:Next Agni-3 flight towards latter half of first quarter next year.
So, that would make it latter half of third quarter? :)
Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Post by Arun_S »

This brings closure to Agni-III maiden flight failure. The root cause and the next flight in Jan or Feb-07.
Tilak wrote:Why did Agni-3 Fail?
(By Srinjoy Chowdhury)
Sunday, December 24, 2006
A thin stream of exhaust vapour, a few burnt cables...and India's most sophisticated weapon, with a range of 3,000 km, crashed after lift-off. Now, scientists investigating the crash of the Agni-3 have submitted their report to the Defence Ministry.

The report states that several minutes after lift-off, a pencil beam of hot exhaust fumes went back into the rocket and re-circulated inside, thus burning cables on one side which caused the crash. The fumes bypassed a metal plate that is designed exclusively to stop the reverse-flow.

So, what can be done? Scientists are now designing a new flexible heat shield that would prevent the flow. Laboratory tests to choose the most effective replacement are in progress and the next Agni-3 launch is likely in May 2007. The new missile will have a longer range, a third-stage mechanism that will ensure its reach of over 4,000 km. For India's defence planning, the Agni-3 is crucial — it is capable of carrying nuclear weapons and is a deadly deterrent.

India to test fire Agni-III early next year
New Delhi, Dec 28: India is planning to test fire again the country's most potent missile 3,000 kms range surface to surface Agni-III early in the new year as Defence scientists make a bid to wash out failures which plagued missile programme in 2006.

The maiden trial of Agni-III which was to incorporate many advanced technologies conducted in July 2006 was a dismal failure as the missile crashed into sea just seconds after blast off from the Interim Test Range in Balasore in Orissa.

After undertaking a minute review of the causes of failure of the maiden test flight of Agni-III, DRDO has now planned a re-trial of missile any time during January or early February, Defence Ministry officials said.

***************************

Forum Admins: Please preserve this thread in BRF archives.
Locked