disha wrote: UlanBatori wrote:
BTW, This is what I wanted to ask: Given that ISRO seems to be really busy, could it be that all those ppl sitting in Mission Control are permanent full-time Mission Controllers?
Like Air Traffic Controllers? I thought they were rocket-scientists pulled out of the machine shop, lorry pool, car pool etc and put in front of a screen with orders to go down a checklist and push keys and take down numbers, while listening to cricket commentary on their head phones.
UB'ji, it is not humour if it crosses a limit. The above comes in that category. The above is a non-question since the answer to it has no material impact.
Sorry, it is a serious question. I do not see why anyone should get offended, but apologies if they choose to be that prickly, because I do not have the sensitivity to see why. Certainly no disrespect intended. Anyone who works for ISRO is by definition a "Rocket scientist" to the outside world. Remember Kaleem Khawaja the Sultan of the NRI-SAHI etc? IIT-KGP grad, his job was in the construction dept which built the small buildings and machine rooms and pakistans at a NASA Center. He was called a NASA Scientist. If he was that, then so is every ISRO employee a Rocket Scientist. If you work at Boeing at the security office checking vehicle license numbers, you are a Boeing employee, and that 787 is yours as much as it is that of the VP in a suit sitting in a tower in Chicago flipping PPT charts. In fact the security guard is much closer to reality than the VP is. Fully deserving of the Pride, which the VP probably has none.
If there is only like 1 launch every year, I would ask people all over the organization to step in and do Mission Control. If I have one launch every month, then there is enough work to keep them busy as full-time specialist Controllers.
This has a huge impact on the economics of space operations: the primary cost of space ops is the salaries, not the hardware or fuel or lease of the facilities. IOW it takes a "standing army" of expert people to get a rocket up there and back. You cannot just hire and fire them like software companies do: their expertise is very special.
An outfit like Kennedy Space Center has launches practically every week ( guessing) with numerous launch pads and numerous customers. So they will have full-time controller army, I suppose. But I had no idea that ISRO had enough launches to occupy so many controllers. Apparently I was wrong: ISRO seems to have many more launches than what makes the newspapers in Mongolia.
Also, are the controllers shared between defence and civilian missions? Except for the duration (so far), the processes are pretty similar, so the skill-sets should be similar down to the expert who scans all system reports in a flash (no joke that!) and updates "Situation Naarmal".
So how does ISRO operate? Trained specialist controllers, who have to be taught each different mission? Or do the scientists, engineers, machinists, everyone, get trained for mission control? Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
Specifically now: when something goes wrong, and is not in the Mission Control Manuals, what happens? Do the scientist-turned controllers get to solve the problem? Or does it just get tossed back into the labs while the expert mission controllers wait?
Please answer if you can. Yes, it is a serious question.