GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions

disha · Post by **disha** » 06 Jan 2014 09:07

Singha wrote:spacex does seem to be exploring a lot of new era concepts including getting the 1st stage back to launch site in minutes and second stage via orbital re-entry later. also pneumatic pushers for stage separation to leave things more intact for reuse.

where do they get their cryogenic engines from? inhouse? their Falcon9 seems like a lot to have developed from scratch in just 10 years.

NASA wants to privatize some of its launch services (like USAF uses Boeing Delta for spy sats)., and just as Boeing uses USAF facilities (like Vandenburg AFB)., spacex uses NASA's launch facilities.

Basically, NASA is currently gestating SpaceX. The idea is for NASA to get out of the business of doing routine launches and concentrate on cutting edge research.

ISRO is also looking to do the same.

Again once should not compare "SpaceX vs. ISRO" - chalk and cheese comparison.

partha · Post by **partha** » 06 Jan 2014 09:08

Step motherly treatment of GSAT. It should hold Adhikaar rally in space.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 06 Jan 2014 09:10

SpaceX is NASA without the bureaucracy.

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Jan 2014 09:11

Now every attempt should be made to get the GSLV MKII to a GTO capability of around 3.5tons. I think this is doable if they get rid of the inefficiencies that came about because of the maximum reuse of the PSLV hardware.

For eg, the core stage cuts off at 100s, while the 4 boosters in the 1st stage burn for 149s. Basically, the boosters are lugging the empty weight of the core ( a couple of 100 kgs) for 49s. The namby pamby 2nd stage burns for some 150s after that and then the cryo stage burns for a full 12minutes to get the satellite into space. All the efficiency of the vehicle currently comes from the cryo stage. They should do better than this.

Maybe ISRO should build a longer core stage with around (200 secs) with a tailored thrust profile and the booster engines throttling suitably to ensure that the vehicle remains with the max dynamic load and acceleration limits, enhance the cryo stage with larger fuel and oxygen tanks for a 100s longer burn. All this will result in getting rid of the current 2nd stage and overall mass fraction will improve, giving a higher payload to orbit. This MK2 V1 can be the 1st step.

The 2nd step once the Cryo engine has been proven will be to increase the chamber pressure and expansion ratio, giving a higher Isp (closer to 400s than the current 350s) and that will again increase the mass fraction to orbit, taking the capacity close to 4 tons to GTO. The GSLV MKII should fill the 2 to 4 ton niche in the global market as a very efficient and cost effective launcher, if they fix the current inefficiencies.

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 06 Jan 2014 09:20

BBC and CNN seem to have serious heartburn up in their a$$es, not reporting this,
I remember they were reporting it in bold and on home page when first launch had failed.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 06 Jan 2014 09:22

There is no solid core stage available which burn for say 150 or 200 secs for ISRO. Only solution is to bring the solid core outside. Just like GSLV MK3, they can bring the S-139 outside and make it 2, keep and single L-60 and C-15 as main body. That will give a decent capacity of 2.5T to GTO for sure

But that's a huge redesign

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 06 Jan 2014 09:36

all the above in effect would mean a new GSLV whatever be the name. like f-solah block15 vs f-solah block60. years of ground tests to get ready.

its better they focus limited time and resources on proving the CE engines and the MKIII....payloads worldwide are getting heavier all the time.

disha · Post by **disha** » 06 Jan 2014 09:37

^^ That is GSLV Mk III.

With boosters in GSLV Mk III will be rated to 4-6 Tons GTO.

A core alone or a smaller booster in GSLV Mk III can be rated to 2-4 Tons GTO and GSLV Mk II can go ASLV way.

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Jan 2014 09:40

Symontk wrote:But that's a huge redesign

It will be a redesign, but need not be a "huge redesign" like the one you said, which will basically mean a whole new vehicle.

Yes, ISRO needs to enhance the core stage with more fuel loading (and the burn towards the end will need to have a tailored thrust), and if he first stage can in total burn for 149 secs (including the core), and the cryo can burn for 150s extra (extra lh2 and lox) , you get rid of the current 2nd stage and you can get a pretty efficient vehicle from the rather not very efficient one at present.

Shankk · Post by **Shankk** » 06 Jan 2014 09:42

Acharya wrote:
Nambi Narayanan was falsely charged with leaking vital defense secrets to two fake Maldivian intelligence officers, Mariam Rasheeda and Fauzia Hassan which itself was the creation of the Kerala police. Defense officials said the secrets pertained to highly confidential flight test data from experiments with rocket and satellite launches. Nambi Narayanan, and D Sasikumaran were accused of selling ISRO secrets for millions.

Following is what Wikipedia says about Shri Nambi Narayanan

On October 3, 2012, The Hindu Reported that Kerala Government has dropped charges against police officials who were alleged to have falsely implicated Nambi Narayanan in the espionage case on the grounds that over 15 years had passed since the case was initiated. The top officer involved in the case, Siby Mathews is currently the Chief Information Commissioner in Kerala.

On November 8, 2012 it is reported that Kerala Government still not complied Kerala High Court order to pay compensation Rs 10 lakhs.

This is really not good but don't want to digress on that in this thread. Any idea if the church was used to punish Shri Nambi Narayanan and D Sasikumaran for daring to go against the powers that be and getting the initial help in building cryogenic engines?

Added later: Also posted this question in Internal Security Watch thread. Will delete from here once the answer is found. Thanks.

disha · Post by **disha** » 06 Jan 2014 09:43

IMVHO

* Retire GSLV Mk II after some 8-10 flights., basically the cryo - engineering is mastered
* GSLV Mk III core alone or with 4 boosters (currently the pictures show 2 boosters) or with up rated stages can follow the Ariane/Delta strategy.
* ISRO should get into the TSTO/RLV

Basically, ISRO's current focus at reducing the cost per kilogram is correct and should be pursued.

Getting into my rocket is bigger than your rocket is useless. My rocket is safer and more effective is what we should tune our minds to!

disha · Post by **disha** » 06 Jan 2014 09:44

^^ShankK, that is a digression. Better addressed in Internal Security thread.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 06 Jan 2014 09:48

Launcher size depends on satellite size too. Currently we use the ariane for heavier sats. If we foresee building bus sized 10ton sats we might as well make our own launcher configurable to carry many different payloads upto a certain max.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 06 Jan 2014 10:14

we should also seriously think on plugin systems that have standard docking ports and vestibules. something on the lines of ISS, but on a bang for the buck smaller scale? why?

we could dispatch smaller or standard rockets with smaller/standard payload to mission extensions, undock power supply, and redock with new supply, replace systems and sub systems, enhance and augment and extend life.

we could really start thinking about Indian Space Station, but with completely v&v-ed in our super computers.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 06 Jan 2014 10:31

vina wrote:
Symontk wrote:But that's a huge redesign
It will be a redesign, but need not be a "huge redesign" like the one you said, which will basically mean a whole new vehicle.

Yes, ISRO needs to enhance the core stage with more fuel loading (and the burn towards the end will need to have a tailored thrust), and if he first stage can in total burn for 149 secs (including the core), and the cryo can burn for 150s extra (extra lh2 and lox) , you get rid of the current 2nd stage and you can get a pretty efficient vehicle from the rather not very efficient one at present.

Its a huge redesign (the one which I proposed, 2* S139 + L60 + C15), I will tell you why. Current GSLV has 4 vanes, in each of the L-40. All this has to be brought into the single L60 one

Apart from this, around 20 years back I have seen some other GSLV drawings, not sure if they are really following up on that

1. without 4 L-40 stages but with 6 S-9 strapons (My suggestion will be to use the Agni-4 S-15 segments)
2. with 2 L-40
3. with 6 L-40

Going by what ISRO always does, the C-15 can be expanded to C-25. ISRO always uses the 60% - 70% capacity ones for first few launches and then only use them with full capacity

dinesh_kimar · Post by **dinesh_kimar** » 06 Jan 2014 10:34

OMG! Now that CUS is in reach, the no. of ideas flowing from BRFites is mind boggle!

> Enhanced Thrust for 2-4 tons
> An Indian ISS
> Plug and Play devices
> Mk II going ASLV way, etc.

I am in happy daze, and happy days are here again.

ISRO has proved once again that some things are World Class in India.

On other fronts, hope we get a
> 1500 hp diesel for MBTs (this is do-able, we have 5500 hp Railway engines);
> the other DRDO entity is able to deliver 58 kN dry and 95 KN wet thrust with MTBO of 1200h

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 06 Jan 2014 10:46

SSridhar wrote:
prasannasimha wrote:Does anyone know the inclination error ?
I heard that the inclination was exact, 19.3 deg as required.

Yes, it was nailed. Dr. Radhakrishnan clearly mentioned that the error was a 2nd decimal delta.

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 06 Jan 2014 10:56

Wasn't the MK-2 design as it exists supposed to have a capacity of 2.5T to GTO? The last failed launch attempt had a 2.2T satellite as its payload . Given the manpower constraints in ISRO, I feel there is more bang for the buck in dedicating resources to the MK3 than in doing a fairly significant redesign of the MK-2. Any work to improve the efficiency of the rocket that does not change its aerodynamic profile and the gross weight makes sense and ISRO did that with the PSLV. There might be more scope to do that with the GSLV-MK2 as well. Beyond that, it might not be worth it. After the MK3, there is the ULV family to focus on, which will entail the development of a completely new technology - the semi cryo engine. ISRO's plate is pretty full as of now and it does not have the bandwidth to do much beyond fine tuning the current Mk2 design.

vina · Post by **vina** » 06 Jan 2014 11:04

symontk wrote:Going by what ISRO always does, the C-15 can be expanded to C-25. ISRO always uses the 60% - 70% capacity ones for first few launches and then only use them with full capacity

Going b the link that Singha posted..Cryogenic Upper Stage, it seems that the work is underway to increase the thrust to 90KN against the current 75KN.

The current version of the Indigenous Cryogenic Engine develops a thrust of 73 kilo Newtons (kN) in vacuum with a specific impulse of 454 seconds and provides a payload capability of 2200 Kg to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) for GSLV.

Work is underway to increase the thrust to 90 kN.

Eventually, all GSLVs will use the Indian Cryogenic Upper Stage (CUS) that develops 90 kN ton of thrust, against 75 kN of the Russian CUS; and they will carry 15 ton of propellant against 12.5 ton of the Russian engine.

If it is going to develop 90KN /9tons thrust and carry 15ton of propellant, the burn time will be like I said around 150s longer, that leaves only fixing the inefficiencies in the lower stage.

Maybe they are waiting for the Semi Cryo stage to come about to do a clean replacement of the L40+Core+Stage 2 and go for a 2 stage GSLV (Semi Cryo first stage and a CUS with 9T thrust and 15 ton propellant) which will put a 2 to 4 ton class satellite to GTO. That will be one heckuva vehicle and will be very competitive with anything out there in the near future.

Time to get rid of the solid stages and the UDMH/N204 engines with their low Isp . High Isp with cheap rockets coming from dhoti clad engineering is what is needed.

I have misgivings about the 1st stage of the MKIII with the enhanced Vikas twin cluster (Clustered Twin Weak Ass Engines)

. Ideally you need a Semi Cryo (Hydrocarbon + LOX... I know ISRO is going Kerosene way, but ideally would have loved LCH4 with it's higher Isp,even if it results in a more voluminous stage) and the Weak Ass engines are retired.

Ah well, maybe when the Semi Cryo stage comes to fruition, we will have the GSLV MK2 and the MK3 morphing into a newer class called EGSLV (Evolved GSLV) or Rajiv/Indira Gandhi / JL Nehru Rocket or whatever names the Politicos & Baboons manage to come up with.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 06 Jan 2014 11:36

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 06 Jan 2014 11:36

The GSLV Link that Singha posted says that the first stage empty weight is 20 tonnes and it is carried for 60s after its burnout! So around 20 tons deadweight is being carried in the current config. The Mk-III should get rid of this inefficiency.

DRDO has now tested motor casings made of carbon composites. Is there any reason why the first stage of GSLV/PSLV cannot be of carbon composites to reduce the weight? Also, is there any issue with using composite casings for the liquid motors?

wasu · Post by **wasu** » 06 Jan 2014 11:44

ISRO Update:

First orbit raising operation of GSAT-14 is successfully completed by firing the Apogee Motor for 3,134 seconds on Jan 06, 2014. Realised orbit is 8,966 km (Perigee) by 35,744 km (Apogee).

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 06 Jan 2014 12:02

It would have been great if there were onboard cameras so we could have seen the stage separation, SRBs falling off etc. Has this ever been done before in ISRO launches? I am not sure if there is any cost overhead, tracking infrastructure technical issue to this.

vdutta · Post by **vdutta** » 06 Jan 2014 12:38

^^ Been saying it all along. Even chinese has cameras both outside and inside.

Americans have been doing it since the dawn of the ages.

Someone please give this idea to ISRO.

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 06 Jan 2014 13:39

On board cameras?

The flight’s aerodynamic profile and third stage ignition sequence were also adjusted. In addition, the rocket(D5) carried cameras for the first time, to record its operation.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/ ... satellite/

No footage released yet

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 06 Jan 2014 13:46

nvishal wrote:On board cameras?
The flight’s aerodynamic profile and third stage ignition sequence were also adjusted. In addition, the rocket(D5) carried cameras for the first time, to record its operation.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/ ... satellite/

No footage released yet

Nice! Should be very interesting to watch. Will send up goose bumps the way the footage of the moon's surface from Chandrayaan did. I am surprised why they din't feed the camera output to the main tracking screens in the control room. The two traces on the screen were good and the camera output would have complemented that.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Jan 2014 14:32

wasu wrote:ISRO Update:
First orbit raising operation of GSAT-14 is successfully completed . . .

One important aspect of GSAT-14 is the Two Ka-band Beacons meant for attenuation studies. These are needed for IRNSS/GAGAN project to improve the accuracy of signals.

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 06 Jan 2014 15:05

The CUS restart capability was mentioned, but looks like it was not tested in this flight.

Wonder why? because it could have been done after releasing the S/C, unless the H2/LOX tanks were reading zero level - which is unlikely.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 06 Jan 2014 17:59

Thread cleaned up. Chatter about BBC and CNN deleted.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 06 Jan 2014 18:02

I thought people here must be smart enough to realize that negative news is what makes news everywhere. So why would a GSLV launch make front news in the west. Most of the readers do not care there about their own scientific or engineering achievements. It is a waste of time and energy to focus on what they report.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 06 Jan 2014 18:07

juvva wrote:The CUS restart capability was mentioned, but looks like it was not tested in this flight.

Wonder why? because it could have been done after releasing the S/C, unless the H2/LOX tanks were reading zero level - which is unlikely.

juvva, all earth storable and cryogenic engines are restartable without doubt and I am sure the cryogenic engine would have been tested for that 'on the stand' at Mahendragiri. There was no need to re-light the engine because once the necessary injection parameters were met, the engine has to be stopped and the third stage had to be discarded. Once that is done, there is no communication, command, & control possible with the discarded stage from Sriharikota.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Jan 2014 18:29

partha wrote:Good pictures of the GSLV D5 rocket here - http://www.isro.org/gslv-d5/Imagegaller ... hicle.aspx

Outer cover of the cryogenic stage was painted black. Is there any significance to the black color?

Possibly its the insulation. I don't know why insulation's are usually black.

Hemanth · Post by **Hemanth** » 06 Jan 2014 18:31

SSridhar wrote:
partha wrote:Is there any significance to the black color?
To keep the innards of the cryo stage as cool as possible in the outer space in which the engine operates.

Is this correct? I read in the Slashdot comments that the color should be white to reflect heat & thought it made sense.

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 06 Jan 2014 18:44

Russian CUS has this black covering.

ISRO CUS

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 06 Jan 2014 19:12

congratulations!! It is a great achievement!! Another milestone!!!

nrshah · Post by **nrshah** » 06 Jan 2014 19:35

Great achievement. Will surely speed up development of heavy launchers.
beside i wish we see PSLV made entirely by some private sector and Isro move to more challenging things rather than 'aam admi' types PsLv

Bolasani · Post by **Bolasani** » 06 Jan 2014 20:03

AMA by ISRO scientists on Reddit:

Reddit

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 06 Jan 2014 20:16

Singha wrote:spacex does seem to be exploring a lot of new era concepts including getting the 1st stage back to launch site in minutes and second stage via orbital re-entry later. also pneumatic pushers for stage separation to leave things more intact for reuse.

where do they get their cryogenic engines from? inhouse? their Falcon9 seems like a lot to have developed from scratch in just 10 years.

This is highly off topic for a thread dedicated to the celebration of India's glorious and well deserved achievement but I feel it deserves an answer.

The initial design of SpaceX's Merlin engine is based on the Apollo lunar landing module engine. It was given to Sapce X gratis by NASA as encouragement for private development. It has since gone through numerous iterations to where it is today. How did they do this? By hiring ex-Nasa engineers and contractors and ex-astronauts who wanted to be on the ground floor of private development of space. When you have access to people like that, success is almost a foregone conclusion *if* you got the money. Elon Musk the founder of SpaceX had the money and capital contacts to do so. SpaceX also got some nuturing form the US Army who lent its facilities for SpaceX to develop and test its rocket system.

Now, back to the celebration!

Sahastra · Post by **Sahastra** » 06 Jan 2014 20:30

Congratulations to ISRO - the pride of our nation. They keep raising the bar as ever.

I would expect ISRO to work at perfecting the GSLV - a la PSLV - before undertaking any major enhancement. Nothing succeeds like success.

On the sides, i often wonder why we keep GSLV discussion thread in this forum - given the extra enthusiasm of so many governments and agencies to link our launch initiatives to military programs anyways. Should it not be in the Technology forum?

member_23694 · Post by **member_23694** » 06 Jan 2014 20:34

heard in DD , some ISRO official mentioned next GSLV flight in September
GREAT