Indian Space Program Discussion

[Gerard]

ISRO targets to develop semi-cryo vehicle in 6 years

[disha]

What about the Soyuz lauch Vehicle-

1st stage 4 * 1MN (4MN)
2nd stage 1MN
3rd stage 300 kN

Capacity to LEO ~ 7 tons

Apples to Orange comparisons. GSLV puts satellites in GTO while communications satellite launched by Soyuz go into Molniya orbits.

[Aditya G]

ISRO orbital vehicle weighs not more than 5 tons

[ss_roy]

I am not criticising any approach. I am just saying that ISRO requires 2 type of launchers rather urgently..

1. A reliable non- cryogenic design to put 6-8 tons in LEO. The Indian version of delta 2,3 or older versions of Titan 3.

2. A heavy launcher that can put 20 tons in LEO or upto 10-13 tons in GTO. The Indian version of atlas 5, ariane 5. The GSLV mk 3 and 4 would fit the bill.

However we are only developing option 2. We could have option 1. if we tweaked the PSLV/ GSLV design a bit, by say adding 50 seconds (2 segments) more to the main SRB.

[Raj Malhotra]

equatorial location of french guyana.

Plus carrying empty stage to avoid the same falling over Indonesia etc

[Rahul M]

moved from CY1 thread.

The other technologies that ISRO should now gain expertise in-

1. RTG (radio thermal generator) - a good use of Pu238. Pu239 is the bomb making stuff, Pu 238 is the unwanted highly radioactive crap. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisoto ... _generator>

2. Nuclear reactors for spacecrafts- The next generation of Topaz like reactors. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor>

3. Ion Engines. (Xenon as propellant) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_ion_thruster>

4. VASIMIR type engines. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_S ... sma_Rocket>

[Gerard]

looks like the GSLV-Mk II will fly in April 2009

link

So what next? “ISRO is busy developing cryogenic engines (rocket motors designed for liquid fuels — hydrogen and oxygen — that have to be held at very low “cryogenic” temperatures to be liquid; they would otherwise be gas at normal temperatures) indigenously. The project should see results by April next year,” signed off Bhaskaranarayana.

[rachel]

Actually, SSRoy, our GSLV will not put anything like 10t into GTO. GSLV Mk2 next year will hoist 2-2.5t into GTO, GSLV Mk3 in 2010 will hoist 4 or 4.4 tonnes.

4 tonnes will put us equal to Japan and China today, but well behind US, Russia, and Ariane.

We have a ways to go with launchers.

[John Snow]

Molniya Sat

Molniya orbits required less rocket power to achieve than a geosynchronous orbit, and were better suited to communications with northern latitudes. Since satellites in such an orbit move very slowly at apogee, they appear to 'hover' for hours at a time over northern latitudes. The disadvantage was that the sending/receiving dish must track the satellite, whereas for a geosynchronous satellite a fixed dish could be used.

The satellite consisted of a hermetically sealed, pressurized main section with 2.5 cubic meters internal volume. This kept the electronic components at a stable temperature during the day-night cycle. The spacecraft's orientation system pointed the solar panels at the sun and the antenna at the earth during communications session. Gyroscopic stabilizers pointed the spacecraft to within 10 degrees. An optical sensor was used for antenna pointing. The Alfa on-board retransmitter operated on the 10 m band in both simplex and duplex modes.

Main propulsion was provided with an engine of 200 kgf, with AK-20 nitric acid and UDMH propellants. Total impulse delivered by the three-chamber motor was 8,000 kg-sec, with a specific impulse of 290 seconds. The spacecraft had a span of 8 m across its solar panels and an initial mass on-orbit of 1650 kg.

from Astronuatix

[Arun_S]

A question-

Why can the GSLV lift only 5 tons to LEO when it uses

1st stage - 4 viking engines (2.7 MN) + SRB (4.3 MN)
2nd stage - 1 viking engine (0.7 MN)
3rd stage - 1 Cryogenic engine (75 kN)

Compared to the Basic Ariane 4 which could also lift 5 tons to LEO

1st stage - 4 viking engines (2.7 MN)
2nd stage - 1 viking engine (0.7 MN)
3rd stage - 1 Cryogenic engine (65 kN)

Pls check and correct basic facts on your Basic Ariane 4 confign above. You forgot about Solid strap ons.

You may find this useful:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ariane.htm

[ss_roy]

I am talking about the Ariane 4 (40)- the basic version.

Try <http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Launchers_Home ... ESD_0.html>

or <http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ariane.htm>

Ariane 40.

3 stage core vehicle with original Ariane H10 upper stage. A fully fueled Ariane core cannot lift off the ground without strap-on liquid or solid motors. When Ariane 4 is launched in this configuration, the propellant tanks of the first and second stages are not completely filled.

Launches: 7. First Launch Date: 1990-01-22. Last Launch Date: 1999-12-03. LEO Payload: 2,700 kg (5,900 lb). Payload: 1,900 kg (4,100 lb). to a: geosynchronous transfer orbit trajectory.

Liftoff Thrust: 2,708.000 kN (608,782 lbf). Total Mass: 243,000 kg (535,000 lb). Core Diameter: 3.80 m (12.40 ft). Total Length: 58.40 m (191.60 ft).

Stage1: 1 x Ariane 4-1. Gross Mass: 245,900 kg (542,100 lb). Empty Mass: 17,900 kg (39,400 lb). Motor: 4 x Viking 2B. Thrust (vac): 3,034.100 kN (682,093 lbf). Isp: 278 sec. Burn time: 205 sec. Length: 23.60 m (77.40 ft). Diameter: 3.80 m (12.40 ft). Propellants: N2O4/UDMH.

Stage2: 1 x Ariane 1-2. Gross Mass: 37,130 kg (81,850 lb). Empty Mass: 3,625 kg (7,991 lb). Motor: 1 x Viking 4. Thrust (vac): 720.965 kN (162,079 lbf). Isp: 296 sec. Burn time: 132 sec. Length: 11.50 m (37.70 ft). Diameter: 2.60 m (8.50 ft). Propellants: N2O4/UDMH.

Stage3: 1 x Ariane H10. Gross Mass: 12,000 kg (26,000 lb). Empty Mass: 1,600 kg (3,500 lb). Motor: 1 x HM7-B. Thrust (vac): 62.703 kN (14,096 lbf). Isp: 446 sec. Burn time: 731 sec. Length: 11.53 m (37.82 ft). Diameter: 2.66 m (8.72 ft). Propellants: Lox/LH2.

[ss_roy]

Rachel,

I think the public relation babus at ISRO are confusing capacity to GTO (Geostationary Transfer Orbit) with capacity put into GEO (geosynchronous orbit).

I hate it when Indians shortsell themselves!

Typically GTO is twice the number actually put in GEO.

Example

Delta 5 Heavy

GTO 12 757 kg (185 km x 35,786 km at 27.0 deg inclination)

GEO 6 276 kg

Now GSLV Mk3 could put 10 tons in GTO (Satellite + Fuel/Engine to reach GEO) and end up with a usable mass (Final weight of satellite) of 4.5 tons in GEO

One can put twice the amount in LEO (200 km circular) that you can put in GTO. So GSLV Mk3 should be able to put 20 tons in LEO. That is equivalent to Ariane 5, Atlas 5 and Proton. It is also much more than any current chinese launcher (Tops at a theoretical 14 tons for LEO)

I wish that India developed the GSLV Mk4 (essentially GSLV Mk3 *2 + upgrades)- That launcher would put about 40-50 tons in LEO. You could assemble a lunar mission in orbit with 2 shots.

[ss_roy]

The ideal human orbital payload for a GSLV Mk3 would be something like this

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Gemini>

Big Gemini was supposed to be the next generation of human orbital vehicles, but the space shuttle program was more politically acceptable. I think this design is among the best for large orbital vehicles.

Some of the specifications
______
Crew size: 9 to 12
Length: 11.5 m.
Maximum diameter: 4.27 m.
Habitable volume: 18.7 m³
Mass: 15,590 kg
Payload: 2,500 kg
Launch vehicles: Titan 3M, Saturn IB, Saturn S-IC/S-IVB.

Indians have to stop denying their dreams!

[Gerard]

From the post at the top of this page

He said, “If you want to just get to the moon you require a particular capacity. For the return mission, the capacity has to be doubled. GSLV MkIII (due for test by 2010) for example, has a 10-tonne lift capacity in a low-earth orbit. We have to achieve a capability of 20 tonnes plus for bringing back our spacecraft. The semi-cryogenic launcher will give much higher, more powerful and eco-friendly boosters which could be used for larger missions.”

[Raj]

The ideal human orbital payload for a GSLV Mk3 would be something like this

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Gemini>

Big Gemini was supposed to be the next generation of human orbital vehicles, but the space shuttle program was more politically acceptable. I think this design is among the best for large orbital vehicles.

Some of the specifications
______
Crew size: 9 to 12
Length: 11.5 m.
Maximum diameter: 4.27 m.
Habitable volume: 18.7 m³
Mass: 15,590 kg
Payload: 2,500 kg
Launch vehicles: Titan 3M, Saturn IB, Saturn S-IC/S-IVB.

Indians have to stop denying their dreams!

Saturn V , the "moon rocket" had

Payload to LEO 118,000 kg (260,000 lb)
Payload to
Lunar vicinity 47,000 kg (100,000 lb)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V_(rocket)

I think we need to approach these figures if we want to go other planets.

[rachel]

SSRoy, thx for that info, I was unaware of this.

[sunilUpa]

Rachel,


Now GSLV Mk3 could put 10 tons in GTO (Satellite + Fuel/Engine to reach GEO) and end up with a usable mass (Final weight of satellite) of 4.5 tons in GEO

One can put twice the amount in LEO (200 km circular) that you can put in GTO. So GSLV Mk3 should be able to put 20 tons in LEO. That is equivalent to Ariane 5, Atlas 5 and Proton. It is also much more than any current chinese launcher (Tops at a theoretical 14 tons for LEO)

I wish that India developed the GSLV Mk4 (essentially GSLV Mk3 *2 + upgrades)- That launcher would put about 40-50 tons in LEO. You could assemble a lunar mission in orbit with 2 shots.

May I ask you from where are you getting all these numbers for GSLV MKIII? These numbers are way higher than those quoted by ISRO..for example from the Hindu report posted at the top of this passage..

GSLV MkIII (due for test by 2010) for example, has a 10-tonne lift capacity in a low-earth orbit.

and from this presentation

GSLV MKIII Lift off mass - 600 T, typical payload- 4000kg GTO. Oh, both figures were provided not by ISRO PR Babus (as you put it), but by Madhav Nair and L.Muthu. Appreciate some source (other than wiki) to support your figures.

[ss_roy]

Lets see,

The GSLV Mk3 uses 2 SRBs (S200) with 200 tons propellant-so lets say 240 tons each. 240 *2 = 480 tons (let's say 7.8 mN *2 = 15.6mM). Core stage uses 2 upgraded vikas engines (850 kN for 240 seconds)= 1.7 mN. 110 tons propellant, say.. 125 tons. Cryogenic stage has 25 tons of propellant + other stuff = 30 tons. About 635 tons.

Now compare this configuration to a Titan 3 with a centaur upper stage.The GSLV mk3 is an updated Titan 3 in an Ariane 5 like body form.

About the pronouncements of ISRO program heads- they are political animals not scientists, just like the heads of NASA and ESA. They will never tell the true capacity upfront, it is always easier to claim credit for upgrades. Remember the PSLV was originally designed to lift 800 kg in SSO.

[sunilUpa]

Lets see,

The GSLV Mk3 uses 2 SRBs (S200) with 200 tons propellant-so lets say 240 tons each. 240 *2 = 480 tons (let's say 7.8 mN *2 = 15.6mM). Core stage uses 2 upgraded vikas engines (850 kN for 240 seconds)= 1.7 mN. 110 tons propellant, say.. 125 tons. Cryogenic stage has 25 tons of propellant + other stuff = 30 tons. About 635 tons.

Now compare this configuration to a Titan 3 with a centaur upper stage.The GSLV mk3 is an updated Titan 3 in an Ariane 5 like body form.

About the pronouncements of ISRO program heads- they are political animals not scientists, just like the heads of NASA and ESA. They will never tell the true capacity upfront, it is always easier to claim credit for upgrades. Remember the PSLV was originally designed to lift 800 kg in SSO.

Thanks, Just as I thought, you are pulling the fugures from thin air. I asked for reports to support your figures not your inferences. Please refrain from justifying your figures by calling ISRO scientists political animals.

[ss_roy]

I got this info from <http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SPACE/spa ... ml#gslvmk3>

GSLV Mk3

"GSLV Mk-III will be a three-stage launch vehicle with first stage consisting of two S200 Large Solid Booster (LSB) with 200 tonne solid propellant stage, that are strapped to the second stage L110 restartable stage (with 110 tonne liquid propellant & 4-meter diameter). The L110 stage will be first Indian liquid engine cluster design with two [87]improved Vikas engines each of 75 tonne thrust. The improved Vikas engine will use regenerative cooling [88]with superior weight & ISP characteristics. The new S200 booster stage each with 3.4-meter [89]diameter and 25 meter long, would be a scaled up version of mature S125 technology, with estimated enhanced thrust of 785 tonne. The L110 stage will be air lit before the S200 strapon are expended. This would also involve developing a bigger and more powerful C25 cryogenic restartable upper stage with 25 tonne LOX/LH2 propellant, and 20 tonne thrust [90], 4-meter diameter and 8.2 meter long. GSLV-Mk III will have a lift-off weight of about 630 tonne and will be 42.4 meters tall. The large payload fairing of 5-meter diameter and payload volumes of 100 cu meter. Unlike the earlier GSLV types first stage of GSLV Mk-III will not require fins due to availability of adequate control from the large stapon motors."

now compare this to <http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/titan.htm>

Titan 34D or Titan 3D

'LEO Payload: 14,515 kg (32,000 lb). to: 185 km Orbit. Payload: 5,000 kg (11,000 lb). to a: Geosynchronous transfer trajectory. [Cryogenic engine should help with the GTO numbers]

Total weight = 252*2 + 117 + 30 = 504 + 117 +30 = 651 tons

Stage0: 2 x Titan UA1206. Gross Mass: 251,427 kg (554,301 lb). Empty Mass: 40,827 kg (90,008 lb). Motor: 1 x UA1206. Thrust (vac): 6,226.997 kN (1,399,885 lbf). Isp: 265 sec. Burn time: 114 sec. Length: 27.56 m (90.41 ft). Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Propellants: Solid.

Stage1: 1 x Titan 3A-1. Gross Mass:116,573 kg (256,999 lb). Empty Mass: 5,443 kg (11,999 lb). Motor: 2 x LR87-11. Thrust (vac): 2,339.760 kN (525,999 lbf). Isp: 302 sec. Burn time: 147 sec. Length: 22.28 m (73.09 ft). Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine-50.

Stage2: 1 x Titan 3A-2. Gross Mass: 29,188 kg (64,348 lb). Empty Mass: 2,653 kg (5,848 lb). Motor: 1 x LR91-11. Thrust (vac): 453.714 kN (101,999 lbf) [Indian engine should produce about 200 kN]. Isp: 316 sec [Indian engine has ~430 sec]. Burn time: 205 sec [Indian engine can burn for 720 seconds]. Length: 7.90 m (25.90 ft). Diameter: 3.05 m (10.00 ft). Propellants: N2O4/Aerozine-50. [Indian engine uses LOX/LH2]"'

[ss_roy]

I do not pull figures from thin air. You might want to read my previous post.

About administrators being political animals. Anyone who becomes an administrator in any institution in any country has good political/ survival skills. That is just the unfortunate truth. Whether they work in NIH, NASA, ESA, DOE or an indian institution like ISRO- admins and dept heads reach that position by playing people.

If you think the politics in indian institutions is bad, I can assure you that the BS at admin levels in places like the NIH is just as bad. It is just that they have more money and therefore the effects of falling out of favor are not so dire.

Humans are much more similar than many would like to believe.

//Thanks, Just as I thought, you are pulling the fugures from thin air. I asked for reports to support your figures not your inferences. Please refrain from justifying your figures by calling ISRO scientists political animals.//

[Arun_S]

Lets see,

The GSLV Mk3 uses 2 SRBs (S200) with 200 tons propellant-so lets say 240 tons each. 240 *2 = 480 tons (let's say 7.8 mN *2 = 15.6mM). Core stage uses 2 upgraded vikas engines (850 kN for 240 seconds)= 1.7 mN. 110 tons propellant, say.. 125 tons. Cryogenic stage has 25 tons of propellant + other stuff = 30 tons. About 635 tons.

Now compare this configuration to a Titan 3 with a centaur upper stage.The GSLV mk3 is an updated Titan 3 in an Ariane 5 like body form.

While it is easy to markup all stages with 20% more fuel; make GSLV-MK3's L110 into a L125 etc etc. I am sure it will not transform a 4 tonne GTO vehicle that GSLV-Mk3 is to a 10 ton GTO vehicle.

It is not like adding additional fuel tank into a pickup truck to double its ferry range. Rocket payload is extremely sensitive to actual mass fraction for the rocket stages (not just rocket motor) and ISP. Comparing a few parameter here and there will lead to wrong conclusion.

My simulations indicate the GSLV-Mk3 's GTO ceiling is close to 6 tonne.
--------
Added later: The mass fraction and ISP of the last stage make a huge difference in payload capacity.

[symontk]

Also adding to that, please dont compare the launch vehicles by stage weights alone. The Indian and other countries rocket fuel, thrust and propellants differ greatly.

It is also noticed that ISRO starts a launch vehicle with bare minimum payload and will enhance upto 40% later. For example, PSLV was designed to launch 1000kg satellite to 800 x 800 SSO. However if you look at the current PSLV launches, its well clear that it can launch 1400kg satellite to a GTO orbit.

That should make it launch at least 2200kg to 800 x 800 SSO or 4500kg to LEO. But it cant do that due to empty stage weight, mass fraction and ISP restrictions as mentioned in the earlier posts.

Designing launch vehicles are pretty complex tasks and let us leave it to the experts.

But yes, I would also like to see a C-14 or SemiCryo stage over the top of PSLV to tap better into the satellite market. Regarding GSLV-MKII, my opinion is that we should not do more things and let GSLV-MKIII evolve with SemiCryo engines.

[prashanth]

There was an argument over satellite platform tech in china military thread and one member was ousted. This pdf has information regarding Indian spacecrafts. It has fairly detailed information about satellite buses.

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252007/1715.pdf

[ss_roy]

Ok, here is how I went about my little exercise.

Q1. Do the S200 SRBs resemble any other SRBs?

A1. Yes, they resemble the SRBs used in the Titan-3 program. They had 206 tons propellant and an empty mass of 41 tons. Looks a lot like the proposed S200! I am assuming that the mass fraction ratio is similar to the S125 and S139 motors. Therefore a total weight of 240 tons (propellant + casing+ motor) for each booster is reasonable. The thrust of each S200 SRB is about 1.6 MN more than a Titan-3 SRB. The S200 might burn a few seconds less (106 vs 115 seconds).

Q2. Does the core liquid stage of GSLV Mk3 resemble any other core stage?

A2. Yes, it resembles the Titan 3 core stage. Both use the same hypergolic propellants (the indian version uses more modern mixtures). The core stage of the GSLV mk3 has 110 ton propellant loading vs 111 ton propellant loading in the Titan 3. Again fairly equivalent. Burn times may be longer for the GSLV (I am not sure about that). But basically they are equivalent.

Q3. Does the orbital injection stage of GSLV Mk3 resemble that found in any other launcher?

A3. Yes.. It looks like like the Centaur G stage of Atlas V. Should be better than the Hypergolic stage in Titan-3, especially for injecting satellites in GTO and GEO.

I assume that will translate into better performance that Titan-3, so if Titan-3 can lift 15 tons in LEO, why would you expect the GSLV to be any worser?

[ss_roy]

There is one rocket engine India should get their hands on.

RD-171 A russian Kerosene/LOX engine developed in the 80s. This engine at 8 MN of thrust is 1 MN more powerful than the similar F1 engine of Saturn 5. Half size versions of it (RD-180) are used in the Atlas 5. It is very reliable.

[John Snow]

Gurus I could never understand why ISRO did not go for Kerosene engines like
Russians did.

example R-7

Fuel Kerosene T-1
Oxidizer Liquid Oxygen





RD 180




No not money the current route of ISRO is more complex and required lot more sophitication than LOX K tech. I am not complaining but why was this route not considered. were there any constraints in Tech, Engg or materials or support infrastructure etc?

[sunilUpa]

Money..they had to prioritise.

[Singha]

this has been talked of atleast once before. some kinda 'strategic mis-step' by ISRO
while chipanda went the kerosene path and developed the heavy Long March-n rockets.

I would not discount political and tech denial conspiracies by Unkil (in concert with EU)
to make it very difficult and unattractive for us to take that route then. those were the
days when Zia was in Reagans lap and every Yindu was very bad in DC. our economy
was in pretty poor shape also and ISRO no doubt had tight funding constraints.

chipanda had not revealed its fangs then and could have got critical techs from Unkil
under the table as a quid-pro-quo for a friendly stance wrt Unkils plans for the Soviets.
plus they have always funded their rocket programs heavily.

lets not forget the PRC miracle of moving from fission to fusion in a record time that nobody has been able to better. they were given N-bomb techs by the soviets and
some help in their Han SSN also....for a early 1970s design it had a suprisingly modern
hull form!

[John Snow]

exactly GD, I did not want to say ISRO made a mistake in going the other route (than Kerosene route..) but the technology for that (kerosene) route is far less sophisticated than the Road we have travelled. IMHO

Yes we discussed but never a clear way as to what was the factor. IIRC GSLV should have been operational by 1980- 1990 era ( from my memory articles read in Science Today of TOI publications of 1960 1970. 1980s in which stalwarts like HP mama, Vasant Gorwariker(Sp?) used to regularly contribute . I wish those magazines could be digitized for future... )

[SSridhar]

I could never understand why ISRO did not go for Kerosene engines like
Russians did. . . . . I am not complaining but why was this route not considered. were there any constraints in Tech, Engg or materials or support infrastructure etc?

John Snow garu, that route was indeed considered. In fact, the early Cryogenics team did plump only for the Kerosene-LOX semi cryogenic engine. However, the Viking project was going on in full swing at that time and the Vikas engine and stage was being built. The Liquid Propulsion team felt that they had a better chance of delivering the engine for PSLV. The cryogenic project was merged with the Liquid Propulsion team which did not pursue the matter until an exclusive Cryogenics group was setup later which wanted to develop a fully cryogenic stage for the GSLV.

[svinayak]

I could never understand why ISRO did not go for Kerosene engines like
Russians did. . . . . I am not complaining but why was this route not considered. were there any constraints in Tech, Engg or materials or support infrastructure etc?

John Snow garu, that route was indeed considered. In fact, the early Cryogenics team did plump only for the Kerosene-LOX semi cryogenic engine. However, the Viking project was going on in full swing at that time and the Vikas engine and stage was being built. The Liquid Propulsion team felt that they had a better chance of delivering the engine for PSLV. The cryogenic project was merged with the Liquid Propulsion team which did not pursue the matter until an exclusive Cryogenics group was setup later which wanted to develop a fully cryogenic stage for the GSLV.

Is this the reason for the delay in Mark III. Offcourse 1993 embargo by the US with Russian help did delay.
GSLV MkIII should have been ready for 1990s

[Gerard]

The N2O2/UDMH route provides strategic capability where the LOX/RP-1 does not.

This may have influenced the decision

[Singha]

please explain that to us laymen.

[Rahul M]

gerard, are you sure you don't mean n2o4 ? I hate chemistry but I don't think there is a n2o2.
NO would be the corresponding thing I believe, given the atomic numbers.

singha ji, the LOX/kerosene route or any other cryo/semi-cryo route isn't feasible for ICBMs as I'm sure you know. impossible to keep in storage and all that.

[Arjun]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1253/1

Strong endorsement for the transparency of our space program

[Arun_S]

Ok, here is how I went about my little exercise.

Q1. Do the S200 SRBs resemble any other SRBs?

A1. Yes, they resemble the SRBs used in the Titan-3 program. They had 206 tons propellant and an empty mass of 41 tons. Looks a lot like the proposed S200! I am assuming that the mass fraction ratio is similar to the S125 and S139 motors. Therefore a total weight of 240 tons (propellant + casing+ motor) for each booster is reasonable. The thrust of each S200 SRB is about 1.6 MN more than a Titan-3 SRB. The S200 might burn a few seconds less (106 vs 115 seconds).

Q2. Does the core liquid stage of GSLV Mk3 resemble any other core stage?

A2. Yes, it resembles the Titan 3 core stage. Both use the same hypergolic propellants (the indian version uses more modern mixtures). The core stage of the GSLV mk3 has 110 ton propellant loading vs 111 ton propellant loading in the Titan 3. Again fairly equivalent. Burn times may be longer for the GSLV (I am not sure about that). But basically they are equivalent.

Q3. Does the orbital injection stage of GSLV Mk3 resemble that found in any other launcher?

A3. Yes.. It looks like like the Centaur G stage of Atlas V. Should be better than the Hypergolic stage in Titan-3, especially for injecting satellites in GTO and GEO.

I assume that will translate into better performance that Titan-3, so if Titan-3 can lift 15 tons in LEO, why would you expect the GSLV to be any worser?

Saar pls do the honour of adding the mass-fraction to the above exercise and see where it leads.

[Avid]

India to Make Satellite Data Available Online
PC World
The National Remote Sensing Center (NRSC) of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) plans to set up a public portal to publish images and other data captured by the country's satellites.

Much of the data that will be integrated into the portal has been generated from projects within India's Department of Space, said A.S. Manjunath, deputy director of the NRSC, on Monday.

.... for more follow the link above

Unsure how long the article will be available.

[Gerard]

gerard, are you sure you don't mean n2o4 ?

Yes, typo on my part.

GD, given the limited funding available, it is quite possible a decision was made to go with the N2O4/UDMH technology because of the dual use nature.

All current Soviet SLBMs and many of its ICBMs (SS-18 etc) use N2O4/UDMH. These are storable at room temperatures and the missiles are ready to fire in minutes.

So instead of this being a wrong decision by ISRO, driven by personality etc, it could have been a cold, calculated move to provide India with a technology also usable by the military.

[Gerard]

The Indians have landed