Indian Space Programme Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 05 Dec 2014 22:44

Have a look at the Gemini,Apollo and Soyuz and Shenzou reentry crew modules. All of them are modelled such that the blunt end is forward to allow deceleration during reentry

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 05 Dec 2014 22:47

^^^ The above picture makes much more sense than the earlier diagram, it looked like the crew module re-entry surface was attached to the service module directly, and the point of contact was solid. (if they pull it off it is an engineering marvel :mrgreen:).

The reason why re-entry surfaces are blunt is due to themal reasons, sharp edges causes high temperature, and also to increase beta to the correct re-entry profile (the ideal re-entry shape is a sphere, and the blunt surface makes the "part exposed to re-entry" look like a sphere).

The above picture there are trusses that attach the service module to a point that is outside the re-entry surface (i.e. adaptor). That totally makes sense.

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby KrishG » 06 Dec 2014 00:35

Was doing some artwork over the week. Here are future replacements of PSLV, GSLV and LVM3. The ULV with semi cryogenic CLC (common liquid core) and C25 upper stage will be used with a variety of solid boosters for different configurations.

The first variant will have 6 S12 boosters (used of PSLV XL) - It will have performance slightly better than the PSLV XL
The second variant with 2 S60 boosters not illustrated. Its performance will be between the GSLV and GSLV Mk3
The third variant will have 2 S138 boosters (used as first stage of PSLV). It's performance will comparable to/slightly better than GSLV Mk3
The fourth variant will have 2 S200 boosters as MkIII. It's performance will upwards of 6 tons to GTO and 15 tons to LEO.

Image

member_28332
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28332 » 06 Dec 2014 02:07

LokeshC wrote:^^^ The above picture makes much more sense than the earlier diagram, it looked like the crew module re-entry surface was attached to the service module directly, and the point of contact was solid. (if they pull it off it is an engineering marvel :mrgreen:).


That is how it will be in future manned launches. The current test configuration of the docking port facing the launch pad seems to be ok for the purpose. Probably, they are using the existing payload adapter. With astronauts in, I doubt that they will launch with them facing downward :) See the Apollo configuration where the LM sits at the bottom of the stack with its legs folded, then the service module with the main engine facing downward and the command module sitting on top facing upward. In the earth orbit, the astronauts did pull forward, do an 180, move backward, dock with the LM and then pull forward again.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 06 Dec 2014 04:08

^^^ Makes sense. g-forces are tolerated the best in that position (spine perpendicular to acceleration and front of body facing the acceleration, the opposite holds for deceleration). Which means the launch orientation of the module must be flipped 180 from that of the re-entry orientation. and that makes the system design to have the service module and crew module positioned the way they are.

Had not thought of that before.

symontk
BRFite
Posts: 904
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby symontk » 06 Dec 2014 06:32

KrishG wrote:
The first variant will have 6 S12 boosters (used of PSLV XL) - It will have performance slightly better than the PSLV XL

Image


I am ok with other configurations but this one really surprises me. It has a CUS stage which is highly costly, will it be able to compete with PSLV on costs? Also the performance would not be close to PSLV but closer to GSLV as CUS one is really powerful. I don't see a replacement for PSLV in that series

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 06 Dec 2014 09:02

Pre Project activities of Human Spaceflight Programme (HSP)
The objective of Human Spaceflight Programme is to undertake a human spaceflight mission to carry a crew of two to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and return them safely to a predefined destination on earth. The programme is proposed to be implemented in defined phases. The pre project activities are progressing with a focus on the development of critical technologies for subsystems such as Crew Module (CM), Environmental control and Life Support System (ECLSS), Crew Escape System, etc., and performance demonstration of major systems through Crew Module Atmospheric Re-entry Experiment (CARE) and crew escape system through Pad Abort Test (PAT).
Image
Preliminary design reviews for most of the systems pertaining to CARE for LVM3-X mission and PAT have been completed. Configuration, layout, and structural analysis of Crew Module for CARE mission have been completed. Design of re-entry trajectory for CARE mission corresponding to launch vehicle ascent trajectory has been carried out. Crew Module structure is in advance stage of realisation for flight test in GSLV-MkIII Experimental Mission.


Human Space flight Programme Crew Module undergoing a test

Functioning of newly developed Head-end Mounted Safe Arm (HMSA) for solid motors in Crew Escape System was successfully demonstrated. A parachute ejection test with Mortar was carried out at Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL), Chandigarh wherein sequential deployment of pilot parachute and drogue parachute was demonstrated. As part of deceleration system qualification, main and drogue parachutes, in modified and improved pack cover configuration, was drop tested at ADRDE, Agra. Parachute Reefing Line Cutter [RLC] of main parachute was realised and development tests were also carried out.
Gas analysers for environment monitoring of crew cabin, cabin lighting system with intensity control and MEMS based barometric sensor have been developed. Wind tunnel testing of Scale model of Crew escape system was completed in National Aerospace Laboratories, Bengaluru.

A unique state-of-the-art test facility – Environment Simulation Chamber (ESC) has been realised and commissioned at VSSC for stand-alone and integrated testing of Environmental Control & Life Support System (ECLSS) functional modules and Flight suit systems. A Variable length-to-diameter [L/D] Lithium Hydroxide (LiOH) proto-canister has been realised as part of air re-vitalisation system development. An integrated thermal performance test setup was realised for testing of crew cabin thermal and humidity control system and tests are in progress.

KrishG
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 1290
Joined: 25 Nov 2008 20:43
Location: Land of Trala-la

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby KrishG » 06 Dec 2014 11:42

symontk wrote:
I am ok with other configurations but this one really surprises me. It has a CUS stage which is highly costly, will it be able to compete with PSLV on costs? Also the performance would not be close to PSLV but closer to GSLV as CUS one is really powerful. I don't see a replacement for PSLV in that series


ISRO will most probably develop an all solid launcher that will handle almost everything that PSLV is launching today into SSO. This launcher will cover the lower end and should be cheaper than the PSLV. Similar to Vega for example. The first variant will be for missions like IRNSS which are the upward limit of current PSLV.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 06 Dec 2014 23:16

SRO ‏@isro 51m51 minutes ago
GSAT-16 Update:Launch is scheduled at 02:10 hrs, Dec 07, 2014-IST on-board Ariane 5 VA221. Live telecast on DD national from 01:30 hrs

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 06 Dec 2014 23:31

LokeshC wrote:^^^ Makes sense. g-forces are tolerated the best in that position (spine perpendicular to acceleration and front of body facing the acceleration, the opposite holds for deceleration). Which means the launch orientation of the module must be flipped 180 from that of the re-entry orientation. and that makes the system design to have the service module and crew module positioned the way they are.

Had not thought of that before.

Actually they are similar.Only the cladding made it appear so.

member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_22733 » 07 Dec 2014 00:06

^^^ You mean Orion and Our module?

My point is that you cannot have the re-entry surface having attachment points connecting the crew module to the service module, and I was wondering two things
1) Why is it placed like that -- Ans: g-force tolerance
2) Are they attached to the re-entry surface -- Ans: No

The details/implementation maybe different, but the need for the modules to be placed the way they are remains the same between the Orion and our modules.

member_28332
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28332 » 07 Dec 2014 00:28

SM at the bottom and the CM on top (wider, re-entry end at the bottom) makes for the most compact stack, still leaving the docking port open. Plus, you'd want the CM at the top for less effort on the part of the CES.

Varoon Shekhar
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 07 Dec 2014 03:07

"GSAT-16 satellite successfully launched on early morning of Dec 07, 2014 from French Guiana"

Great stuff! This satellite will really be helpful with its 48 transponders.

Question about 'experimental satellites'. If you were to explain to a total layman, how an experimental comm sat works, how would you do it? How could you arrange the transmission of those transponders, so that what they broadcast doesn't appear on your TV screen, right next to the channel showing "CSI" or "Criminal Minds". I guess this is what a layman wants to know. What exactly are these 'experimental' transponders, and where do their channels appear, on whose TV screen?

disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7221
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby disha » 07 Dec 2014 09:07

prasannasimha wrote:For what its worth this would probably be the "final" configuration
Image


The above was speculated since there was speculation that ISRO has contacted Russians for help with ISRO's human spaceflight program. Just because Chinese copied the Russian design, does not mean ISRO will copy Russian design. Also ISRO consulting Russians would be for a different reason. One could be to understand Russian docking ports for example.

ISRO's "crew vehicle" will look more like American than like Russian. Chinese was a tin can copy. Nothing major in that.

The "final" configuration is limited - generally there is the "service module" - basically a rocket assembly that allows for Orbital maneuvers. And on top of it sits the re-entry vehicle., which has to be tear dropped shaped anyway.

1/2

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23757
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby SSridhar » 07 Dec 2014 10:06

Woman-power, the most powerful rocket - Sangeetha Kandavel, The Hindu
Women can’t be left out when the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) launches yet another dream: sending astronauts into space.

In fact, women scientists and engineers have played a key role in designing the Geo-synchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle-Mark III that will lift off from Sriharikota in a few days, carrying a crew capsule without astronauts.

As it is only an experimental mission, the capsule will return 20 minutes after the blast-off.

“The development of the GSLV Mk-III (LVM3) started in 2002. Then on, many women have played different roles in the project,” says S. Somanath, its project director, as he showed the crew module at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre (SHAR) at Sriharikota.

There are many noteworthy women among the 600 engineers at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre and the SHAR who developed the rocket in phases.

The digital auto pilot (DAP), the software that controls the rocket, was designed by V.R. Lalithambika and her team. D.S. Sheela is the group director; V. Brinda is the head of the Control Design Division; and Manju Unnikrishnan and Rani designed the onboard software and its integration.

The simulation of the flight of LVM3 requires special software. S. Anitha, A. Sreelatha and Jayachithara are among the seniors who worked on the software.

B. Valsa is an expert in software engineering and deputy director responsible for the system reliability of I the VSSC. “She and her team, comprising 200 engineers and other technical staff, are responsible for the quality and reliability of the systems as well as testing,” says Mr. Somanath.

On an average, 40-50 women would have worked in different phases of this project… They have proved that they are equally competent when compared with their male counterparts,” he emphasises.

Structural designer A.P. Beena, along with her young colleague Geethu Abraham and others, designed the Crew Module Atmospheric Re-entry Experiment (CARE) structure for this mission. “Beena has designed the propellant tanks of the L110 stage of LVM3,” Mr. Somanath notes.

Rachel SKD, a veteran in structural design, has earlier designed many structures of the PSLV and the GSLV. For LVM3, she and her colleagues have designed the most critical structures, very complex in design.

“At every juncture of this project, women scientist have added value [to it] and given us ideas and inputs. R. Neetha is head of the Structural Dynamics Division, which is responsible for evaluating the rocket structures to dynamic loading. They carry out response studies to find out whether the vibration levels in rocket in flight is within the specified limits,” Mr. Somanath says.

There is a younger crop of scientists and engineers, too. Many women engineers who joined in recent years from the premier institutes in the country are working on the assembly and testing of the rocket system, at test stands and in the vehicle launch complex as engineers.

Once the GSLV Mark III’s capsule, the size of a small bedroom, returns to earth with the help of three large parachutes, these women scientists, along with their male colleagues at the ISRO, will begin building on yet another complex, but cherished, dream — India’s Human Space Flight Programme.

AbhiJ
BRFite
Posts: 494
Joined: 29 Sep 2010 17:33
Contact:

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby AbhiJ » 07 Dec 2014 10:13

Can someone evaluate the below experiment on IRNSS Satellites?

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4279

These results — which are within the 20-meter
accuracy predicted by ISRO for IRNSS — suggest
the possibility that in south Finland (and also in
eastern Europe) IRNSS satellites may be able to
complement the Galileo constellation until enough
of its satellites are deployed to obtain a continuous Galileo-only position fix. These
benefits are expected to grow as more IRNSS
satellites are deployed in space in the future.
Therefore, the impact of these results is
considerable and interesting to the positioning,
navigation and timing (PNT) research and user community even outside the intended service
area of IRNSS.

prataparudra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 05:31

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby prataparudra » 07 Dec 2014 19:02

Did some reading on Delta IV Heavy and Arianne 5, wow GSLV MK3 is nowhere near these monsters

Delta IV Heavy:
Payload to GTO 14,220 kg (31,350 lb)

Arianne 5:
Payload to GTO
ECA: 10,500 kilograms (23,100 lb)

GSLV MK3:
Payload to
GTO 4,000 kg (8,800 lb)-5,000 kg (11,000 lb)

I guess once the CE-20 is figure out, Mk3 could be scaledup (hopefully). Just wondering, is there any other tech we need to master for these heavy lift rockets, apart from cryogenics.

Oh, and the Saturn V F1 engines and RD 170/171: 1.5 million lbf thrust... :shock: :eek: Probably we are not even going to attempt this thrust because these just came out for moon race.

and how come SpaceX got there so quickly :roll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... et_engines

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 07 Dec 2014 19:22

The thing is that these are going to be gradually scaled up.The goal is after a CE20 engine to go to CE60. Also the engine of Saturn 65 was a semicryogenic engine for the first stage.We are also in the development of a 2000 Kn semicryogenic engine which will be 449618 lbf thrust. We did not master Cryogenic technology till recently and so we need to toddle but launching 4 tons to GTO is no small feat.

remember after Saturn V and the death of Von Braun even NASA could not replicate it and is struggling.

Space X can do these things quickly because they get the know how from NASA. We do not get that :) They are facilitators. The Merlin engine is based on the TRW engine which was designed and built by the Space launch initiative which was NASA directed

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 07 Dec 2014 19:39

remember after Saturn V and the death of Von Braun even NASA could not replicate it and is struggling.


I think it was more of Funding , Priority and convenience rather than NASA struggling.

Delta IV Heavy:
Payload to GTO 14,220 kg (31,350 lb)

Arianne 5:
Payload to GTO
ECA: 10,500 kilograms (23,100 lb)


All about propulsion used , requirement and costing of the vehicle. Cost consideration is what is forcing ESA to move to Ariane 6

Ariane 6.1 Two P145 solid rocket boosters, Vulcain 2 liquid engine main stage, and a cryogenic upper stage powered by the Vinci engine
Ariane 6.2 Two P145 solid rocket boosters, Vulcain 2 liquid engine main stage, and a hypergolic upper stage
lower payload capacity and cost than variant 6.1

prataparudra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 18
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 05:31

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby prataparudra » 07 Dec 2014 19:47

prasannasimha wrote:The thing is that these are going to be gradually scaled up.The goal is after a CE20 engine to go to CE60. Also the engine of Saturn 65 was a semicryogenic engine for the first stage.We are also in the development of a 2000 Kn semicryogenic engine which will be 449618 lbf thrust. We did not master Cryogenic technology till recently and so we need to toddle but launching 4 tons to GTO is no small feat.

remember after Saturn V and the death of Von Braun even NASA could not replicate it and is struggling.

Space X can do these things quickly because they get the know how from NASA. We do not get that :) They are facilitators. The Merlin engine is based on the TRW engine which was designed and built by the Space launch initiative which was NASA directed


Yaa Apart from Von Braun, the other reason could be the lack of objective (moon race was over) and the costs associated with physical testing in modern times. Whats mind boggling and most people dont notice, is that US of A mastered a lot of tech by repeated testing. Imagine, just the earth landing system was tested some 50 times. And the whole mercury and Gemini programs involved countless tests and were just precursors to the Apollo Program.

I work in simulation, and my company used to be 20% calculation, 80% testing, and now 90% calculation/Simulation, 10% testing. And ITS NOT EASY to simulate everything.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Dec 2014 19:48

I think it was more of Funding , Priority and convenience rather than NASA struggling


A combination of what you just mentioned (Funding, priority) in addition to political interference, lack of general enthusiasm in the political class to fund something through a sustained effort, and other institutional matters. The SLS had to weave around a complex number of issues mostly political, some bureaucratic and others economic given that it was conceived at a time when the economy required a lot of investment to turn around. Thats a sharp contrast to having a direct ear of the President and basically having all that is required at your disposal to develop something with a very specific target date - something that would go to waste if you weren't there on time. Most of the public probably thinks that the next leap in space would be when you have private players at par in capability with state investments (NASA etc). That would take time, but I think by the 2040's it can be a very real possibility. Ultimately, that is really what you want to drive the cost down to make space accessible both for commercial travel and for broader research. If a research University anywhere in the world was able to fund a payload launch for research - that would be a breakthrough..The cost structure required to achieve that would not come through (in the US at least) NASA but through private players that have to be backed but those that would ultimate compete for missions NASA has zero interest in.

Edit: The point mentioned in the above post is quite accurate. Before ORION's launch, not many of the general public knew of the orion or what the larger plan was to get back into space. Contrast this to when you had a clear national objective of beating SU to the moon and creating a national wave of support for NASA in addition to creating an agency to prevent other future surprises (DARPA).

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 07 Dec 2014 20:45

There have been problems in reproducing the Saturn V engines.They are restudying those engines and have created 3D models etc etc to understand them again.One problem is that many of those who worked on the original models are dead etc and the younger scientists have a knowledge gap because a lot of the instruction manuals blueprints etc where destroyed

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7920
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Dec 2014 21:06

^^ Moved the discussion on this topic tot he International space thread..

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby Victor » 08 Dec 2014 00:06

The manned capsule configuration is indeed confusing if we consider the position of the crew and the direction of thrust. It would seem that the blue crewman in the bottom "adapter" module is correctly positioned for launch, not the green guy in the "crew module". :-?
Image
Could they both be crew modules being tested at the same time, maybe one being a command module? Something like this?

An adapter would hardly need to be that big, specially if the top module were correctly positioned on the launcher with the narrower side being on top and the wider side on the bottom.

navneeet
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 22:16

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby navneeet » 08 Dec 2014 00:27

I think this has more to do with the crew capsule not having the usual maneuverability. This being a sub-orbital flight, the module would be separated from the adapter, and straight away crash to earth like a stone. Methinks in the final human rated configuration, the crew module would be rotated 180degrees, much akin to the Soyuz or Orion capsules.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 08 Dec 2014 00:37

Of course the crew modulw will not be used in the human rated version like that.The problem here is that we are not having a service module so we are mounting it on the payload adapter at the docking portto allow mating to the payload adaptor. To allow it to be placed "erect" we need to do so without damaging the blunt end which will be having the ablative thermal soak heat shield.We would not like to have the tiles knocked off when mounting without a special adaptor. Also since it will not be fully maneuverable to the extent we want it to be(probably will be having vernier thrusters etc) will probably just be ejected and then go into a reentry.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby Victor » 08 Dec 2014 01:20

We have already successfully done a reentry with SRE-1 which IIRC did have maneuver capability in and out of the atmosphere and this is why I was wondering why we need to take a chance with an uncontrolled reentry. Yes, the capsule thrusters or the last stage itself will probably put it into the right attitude for reentry.

navneeet
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 22:16

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby navneeet » 08 Dec 2014 07:50

SRE-1 was an orbital flight of 12 days duration before re entry. It had on-board rocket motors for maneuvering & deorbiting. The current flight is only to test the first & second stages, and the integrity of the vehicle during atmospheric phase. remember, we have lost one GSLV due to this.
Again, in the final configuration, a GSLV-III based human space module is more likely to *externally* resemble the recent Orion vehicle, rather than the Soyuz/Chinese copies. ( broader & squatter rather than long slender pencil- types)..

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 09 Dec 2014 18:39


deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby deejay » 09 Dec 2014 18:45

@dhiraj, thank you for the link. Lovely picture of the rocket at the Launchpad.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Dec 2014 20:24


Varoon Shekhar
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 09 Dec 2014 20:38

Is that the actual vehicle fully assembled on the launch pad, or just a model? Excuse the ignorance. But the ISRO site uses the term "mock up".

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby deejay » 09 Dec 2014 20:52

^^^ Sir, it does say mock up and I never noticed. But even the mock up looks great.

navneeet
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 22:16

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby navneeet » 09 Dec 2014 20:55

It's an old pic. circa December 2012. ISRO had assembled a GSLV Mark III on the Second Launchpad. You may find it in old forum posts here

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5056&p=1377566&hilit=GSLV+mockup#p1377566

navneeet
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 22:16

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby navneeet » 09 Dec 2014 21:06

Another interesting thing.. The passive cryo stage was painted black in the mockup, like in GSLV D5, but the passive stage in this flight is painted white like the rest of vehicle.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 09 Dec 2014 21:09

navneeet wrote:Another interesting thing.. The passive cryo stage was painted black in the mockup, like in GSLV D5, but the passive stage in this flight is painted white like the rest of vehicle.

Isnt it still black

Image

member_23694
BRFite
Posts: 732
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_23694 » 09 Dec 2014 21:24

apart from the full mock up pic, rest all the pics seems to be of actual launch vehicle integration for flight test

kvraghavaiah
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 16 Feb 2008 17:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby kvraghavaiah » 09 Dec 2014 21:34

dhiraj wrote:apart from the full mock up pic, rest all the pics seems to be of actual launch vehicle integration for flight test

That is not mock up. That seems to be miss-typed in the ISRO website. It is the actual launch vehicle. See the people standing around it, for comparison of the scale.

member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby member_28108 » 09 Dec 2014 22:14

The mock up was a full sized trial model which was integrated on the launch pad to check the 'fit".It externally looked like the full model. This was done a few years ago.

navneeet
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 22:16

Re: Indian Space Programme Discussion

Postby navneeet » 09 Dec 2014 22:51

Isnt it still black




Image

Image

from the isro link.

http://isro.org/gslv-mkiii-x/Imagegallery/launchvehicle.aspx



This one ain't black....


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 4 guests