Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Gagan »

139 Km altitude is like the Prithvi Missile peak altitude.
We all know what happens to the prithvi once the engine shuts down and it reaches its peak altitude - it falls down like a rock.
The payload fairing is carbon fiber with aluminum support and is quite flexible and cloth like, and WILL NOT survive the trip down from 139 Km, it will burn up and tear off. The satellite inside and its gold foil will melt, burn and disintegrate before the impact into the sea.

That is, unless, ISRO faked the whole thing.
Fed incorrect telemetry into the main gallery, while an alternate site (they have many), had real telemetry.
The satellite is intact and in orbit (Won't be the first time a country has faked a spy satellite launch failure)

Of note, in Jan 2018, the US launched the Zuma satellite on Falcon 9. No telecast was done - the owner of the satellite was never disclosed. The launch was reported in the media as a failure.
Yet a satellite did appear in space right afterwards, and is still orbiting earth, maintaining heading and stabilization.
SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SSSalvi »

2 days over .. the website that reports any identified orbiting object is silent on GSLV R/B ( GSLV Rocket Body ).

As discussed by the learned learned forum here, the body is at the bottom of Bay of Bengal.

You can see the uneasy change in the body language of Control room crew when they reappear ( after silly DD commentary ) at 33:30 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm4XTs9E5xQ
Last edited by SSSalvi on 15 Aug 2021 10:22, edited 1 time in total.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

I like the conspiracy of a successful "failed" launch

always a good idea not to let someone know you have "eyes" on them :mrgreen:
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by brar_w »

Gagan wrote:That is, unless, ISRO faked the whole thing.
Fed incorrect telemetry into the main gallery, while an alternate site (they have many), had real telemetry.
The satellite is intact and in orbit (Won't be the first time a country has faked a spy satellite launch failure)
The problem with that is that most of the folks from whom you may wish to hide the launch success (the larger space players), would have the requisite SSA to verify that a new system has reached orbit successfully.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by arvin »

ISRO was making a statement by making the launch public and treated it just like any other launch. Look we can make this kind of stuff and launch it as a matter of routine.

Dont feel its sabotage on ground since the usual suspects who are up to such tricks can also do it once the satellite is in proper orbit.
SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SSSalvi »

Conspiracy theorists talk of Falcon 9.
The website lists falcon 9 twice. Once as : (DragonSat + Falcon 9 )in 2010 and 2nd time as (CUSAT + Falcon 9 ) in 2013.
Surely you cant have same rocket launch twice. So one ( probably 2010 ) could be a 'silent' launch then.
But both are listed.


Ignore last struckout sentence. Falcon 9 may not be a specific launch but a generic rocket.
my Bad.

My point was : If it was orbiting in any form then it would have been listed by now.

Still, we can wait for a week to see if anything new is listed as GSLV R/B of 2021.
SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2243
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SriKumar »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMAQdfjWXvM&t=3s
In the graphic at 48.43, the plot on the right showing altitude vs time plot suggests that there was a significant loss in altitude in the last 75 seconds, more so than what gravity would do. From 9th grade physics, fall due to gravity would be S= 0.5*g*t^2 gives around 27 km of freefall. Anything more than this suggests some other cause. Plot is low resolution so cannot be sure. The plot to the left shows the trace of the trajectory relative to earth surface was perfect till the end.
SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SSSalvi »

Happy Birthday to ISRO.

ISRO was formed on the Independence Day of 1969.

Prior to that the Space activities were looked after by Indian National Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR) established in 1962 by the efforts of Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and his close aide and scientist Vikram Sarabhai.

============================

@SriKumarji,

In the video there are two screen grabs:
At 38:01 the when the goings on are smooth, Altitude is 127.8 , Vel= 4.26
At 39:21 after non ignition of Cryo, Velocity graph is Horizontal , indicating no change imparted by stage and the Altitude is also slowly decreasing.
SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2243
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SriKumar »

Yes, but do look at 48:43, in the background (at the top where everyone in mission control looks at). There are 4-5 screens. Two show plots plots which are more interesting than the ones at 38:01 and 39:21. It shows the story about 100 secs after CUS ignition.

At 39:19 through 39:21 the velocity increases from 4.77 to 4.78 km/sec (very minor obviously). (The velocity is mentioned as 'relative velocity', which I take to mean: velocity relative to and projected onto earth surface. Could be wrong on this. Perhaps AmberG may clarify). Maybe CUS ignited but did not reach full power. (Added later: This is not clear to read but at 48:32, the relative velocity reads 4.8 or 4.9 km/sec. If this is correct, it seems to have increased).
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9263
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

SSSalvi wrote:Happy Birthday to ISRO.

ISRO was formed on the Independence Day of 1969.

Prior to that the Space activities were looked after by Indian National Committee for Space Research (INCOSPAR) established in 1962 by the efforts of Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and his close aide and scientist Vikram Sarabhai.

.
Thanks for the post. Happy Birthday ISRO!
For space activities prior to foundation of ISRO - C.V. Raman, Meghnad Saha and Homi Bhabha, in addition to Sarabhai, who were close to Nehru were quite active. (Cosmic rays research was then funded by ISRO (or INCOSPAR) and I fondly remember visiting Kolar gold mines where they set up a big lab in mid/late 60's ).

Yes India has made a huge progress. Congratulations.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9263
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

At 39:19 through 39:21 the velocity increases from 4.77 to 4.78 km/sec (very minor obviously). (The velocity is mentioned as 'relative velocity', which I take to mean: velocity relative to and projected onto earth surface. Could be wrong on this. Perhaps AmberG may clarify). Maybe CUS ignited but did not reach full power. (Added later: This is not clear to read but at 48:32, the relative velocity reads 4.8 or 4.9 km/sec. If this is correct, it seems to have increased).
You are correct. To use the formulas I posted ( v^2 = GM(2/r-1/a)), we have to use earth-center coordinate system. That is, velocity relative to center of the earth, and r from the center. In practice we have "altitude" (which have to be added to radius of earth to get 'r') and velocity relative to a point (tracking station) on spinning earth. At equator earth spins about 460 m/sec. One has to keep this in mind (vector addition of the reported velocity and velocity of the tracking station wrt to center of earth). BTW 'v' used in the formula is magnitude of the velocity (direction does not matter).. so makes a formula more practical.

@SriKumar - s= (1/2) gt^2 formula is practical for small heights but not that practical in this case. Earth is not flat (vertical at one point in trajectory is different different at a later point in the trajectory). Other formula is quite easy to use. But *unless* the engine is still working and providing delta-V, nothing else will divert the trajectory. (Very small air resistance so gravity alone explains the trajectory).
SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SSSalvi »

Velocity increase is due to Mr. Gravity pulling it.
Had there been an ignition there would have at least a fraction of second at the time of CUS ign where increase in altitude would have been seen.
Instead we see a DeadBird fall phenomenon
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

So S^3 any updates from ISRO on root cause?

Gagan the fairing separated about 40secs prior to CUS CMD.
And 139km is about 455k feet. That's 100k feet above atmosphere. So burnup also happened.
SriKumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2243
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SriKumar »

SSSalvi wrote:Velocity increase is due to Mr. Gravity pulling it.
The thought crossed my mind but this gave me pause. The plot shows 'relative velocity' . My supposition is that the relative velocity is the velocity of the rocket relative to the surface of the earth, i.e. the velocity 'tangential' to earth surface. In other words, the component of velocity that contributes to orbital velocity. On the other hand, velocity due to gravity only increases the radial (or vertical component) and not tangential component. If the 'relative velocity' shown in the plot includes tangential and radial component, I agree with you. (This begs the question- why is the velocity not increasing over time, since gravity continues pulling it down).
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25085
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SSridhar »

ISRO's Cryogenic Conundrum - The Space Review
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by arvin »

SriKumar wrote:(This begs the question- why is the velocity not increasing over time, since gravity continues pulling it down).
Maybe CUS was functioning with sub optimal thrust.
Hence ISRO called it Technical Anamoly instead of failure.
SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SSSalvi »

Relative velocity is actually a combination of Velocity vectors in all three directions.

SQRT(Vx^2+Vy^2+Vz^2).

They have not continued the telecast after CUS failure so not much is visible about after abort.
Here is a screen grab from GSLV D3 launch video dtd April 15, 2010 which shows the situation for quite sometime after the abort.
Velocity increase and Freefall are clearly seen

Image

Both GSLV D3 mentioned above and GSLV F10 ( Last week launch ) are not listed in GSLV Rocket Body Debris list because these bodies have not attained Orbital parameters. ( Maximum velocity for both are around 4 kms/sec which is well below orbital velocity requirements.

Remaining 13 missions which attained orbital velocity and the R/B remained in orbit for a few days are listed.

Image
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9263
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

SriKumar wrote:
SSSalvi wrote:Velocity increase is due to Mr. Gravity pulling it.
The thought crossed my mind but this gave me pause. The plot shows 'relative velocity' . My supposition is that the relative velocity is the velocity of the rocket relative to the surface of the earth, i.e. the velocity 'tangential' to earth surface. In other words, the component of velocity that contributes to orbital velocity.
May be I don't exactly understand what you are trying to say.
FWIW:
1) - Such plots (and data for sats close to earth - in general) shows velocity relative to earth's surface (or more accurately calculated relative to a point directly below the orbit) rather than relative to center of earth (which is not spinning). This is why orbital velocity of a close-by equatorial orbit could be 7.6 km/sec - if the sat is going in one direction while another orbit at the same altitude going in opposite direction could be 8.3 km/sec. This is why we often launch sats towards east. We need less fuel. For ease of calculations, of for sats which are in higher orbit, such as geocentric orbit or moon, people generally quote velocity with respect to center or earth.).
2). But it is NOT tangential to earth's surface. It is 'magnitude' of the velocity - composing of both radial and tangential components. For a circular orbit, or at the apogee/perigee, the radial component is zero. But one has to keep in mind that we do *not* live on a flat earth and thus direction of both these components are *not* fixed. IOW direction of a 'tangential' component' now would be *different* 1 minute later.
On the other hand, velocity due to gravity only increases the radial (or vertical component) and not tangential component. If the 'relative velocity' shown in the plot includes tangential and radial component, I agree with you. (This begs the question- why is the velocity not increasing over time, since gravity continues pulling it down).
The concept of gravity "only" increasing the "radial" component is practical for orbits which are small enough to ignore earth's curvature...(Perhaps if you give values of altitude/velocity for the two points you are considering - I can give my values to see if they are in agreement with your values :))
Added later: Did not see s^3's post. (Yes, v is the magnitude of the velocity etc..)
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Gagan »

They also issue a self destruct command to destroy the payload and the CUS because it would be headed to a part of the Bay of Bengal where there might be commercial shipping.
There is a Major shipping lane from the 10degree channel between the A&N islands to just south of Sri Lanka that has immense ship traffic.
Also Chennai to Port Blair sea route crosses the flight path.

Did anyone notice that all scientists in the control center had a tablet computer in front of them for the first ever time?
<Conspiracy hat on> The real telemetery was on the tablet. The one on the main screen (Which also drives the animation) was the fake one </Consipracy hat off> :mrgreen:
Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11242
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Gagan »

SSSalvi wrote:Conspiracy theorists talk of Falcon 9.
The website lists falcon 9 twice. Once as : (DragonSat + Falcon 9 )in 2010 and 2nd time as (CUSAT + Falcon 9 ) in 2013.
Surely you cant have same rocket launch twice. So one ( probably 2010 ) could be a 'silent' launch then.
But both are listed.


Ignore last struckout sentence. Falcon 9 may not be a specific launch but a generic rocket.
my Bad.

My point was : If it was orbiting in any form then it would have been listed by now.

Still, we can wait for a week to see if anything new is listed as GSLV R/B of 2021.
SSSalvi Garu,
Falcon 9 is the name of the launch vehicle, because they have a 9 cryo engine cluster in the first stage
Image
SSSalvi
BRFite
Posts: 785
Joined: 23 Jan 2007 19:35
Location: Hyderabad

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by SSSalvi »

^^^
Thanks for the HUGE 9 update Gagan ji ! ! !

Looks like it is going to be electrocuted by the power lines ahead....
ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4053
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by ArjunPandit »

On a serious note, ISRO's chandrayan 2 confirmed the presence of water with a high resolution.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9263
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

^^^ This is a serious news, covered in many news-papers - (See links below)
Many keep talking about "failures" but in reality 95-98% successful due to precise mission management that has ensured a long life for the orbiter. Within the first few months the orbiter provided the Moon's sharpest image ever taken, detected the element Argon-40, provided illuminated images of the Moon, performed 3D mapping of the Moon’s surface, and detected charged particles and their intensity variations from the solar wind. Recently, the Solar X-Ray Monitor, onboard the orbiter, helped Indian scientists to decode the long-standing mystery behind the super-hot outermost part of the Sun’s atmosphere.

Chandrayaan-2 Helps Confirm the Presence of Hydroxyl and Water Molecules on Moon
The scientific paper can be accessed here: Unambiguous detection of OH and H2O on the
Moon from Chandrayaan-2 Imaging Infrared Spectrometer reflectance data using 3 μm hydration feature

Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Chandrayaan-1 was the first moon mission that indicated the widespread presence of water molecules on lunar soil back in November 2008. The mission detected water three months before NASA’s Moon Meteorology Mapper. More than ten years after its first lunar exploration mission, the Indian space agency launched its second lunar mission, Chandrayaan-2, in July 2019.

Although the first mission was essentially a success and even confirmed the presence of water on the moon, Chandrayaan-1 could not determine the precise nature of the hydration signatures it detected. The ISRO scientists readied the second moon mission to overcome this challenge. Chandrayaan-2 possessed a higher spatial resolution of 80m and a spectral range spanning a 2.8–3.5 µm region—ideal for characterising OH and H2O.

Last week, scientists used the data from one of the eight critical scientific instruments onboard Chandrayaan-2 to remove any ambiguity around the presence of hydroxyl and water molecules on the moon's surface. The data collected by the Chandrayaan-2 orbiter's imaging infrared spectrometer (IIRS)—a sensor that captures information from the lunar electromagnetic spectrum—was utilised by researchers to determine the mineral composition of our natural satellite.

According to the study, "the initial data analysis from IIRS clearly demonstrates the presence of widespread lunar hydration and unambiguous detection of OH and H2O signatures on the Moon between 29 degrees north and 62 degrees north latitude."

The article also stated how the rocks rich in plagioclase (typically found in the moon's crust) had higher OH and possibly H2O levels. The researchers found that the mare regions (plains formed on the moon's surface due to volcanic eruptions) are rich in OH at higher temperatures.



Another exciting observation made using the data Chandrayaan-2 gathered was that the regions at a higher altitude and were illuminated by the sun possessed a greater concentration of hydroxyl or water molecules.
Amber G.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9263
Joined: 17 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Amber G. »

Under the India’s BRICS Chair-ship, the BRICS Space Agencies Heads have signed an agreement today (August 18, 2021) for cooperation in remote sensing satellite data sharing.
Link: BRICS Space Agencies leaders signed Agreement for cooperation in Remote sensing satellite data sharing
Image
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by ramana »

SSridhar wrote:ISRO's Cryogenic Conundrum - The Space Review

S^3 Were you there in PSLV-D1 failure investigation?

This GSLV failure reminded me of that early one.

https://blog.aerospacenerd.com/p/lesson ... rst-flight

Note the thorough root cause analysis that led to fixing the issues and made it a workhorse.
My concern is GSLV needs similar reliability to be used for human flight.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8235
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by disha »

Ramana'ji, it is the GSLV MkIII that will be used for the Human Spaceflight program. The GG-CUS on mkIII is easier to test and hence can be considered safer.

Issues are with the GSLV MkII Staged Combustion- CUS. This one is more efficient, more powerful and is one of the most powerful CUS in the world. ISRO thought it had mastered all aspects of GG-CUS and it threw a surprise.

Note that the failures of GSLV Mk2 should be seen in the context of the total launches and failures. 8 launches and 2 failures. The 2nd one being the last one. The first one had the "gripping" problem. Did we run into this again?

Also the GSLV Mk2 failures need to be taken into equivalents of Long March 5, again is based on an expander cycle. The real competitor to Mk-2 CUS 7.5 is the Japanese H2A LE-5.

In nutshell, ISRO needs to double down its investment. It can use the current CUS CE7.5 Mk2 GG engine as a base to come up with a powerful line of non-human space flight engines. This line will have a cheaper but not optimal expander cycles and future metholox. That is, if I were to put money - I would continue with CE7.5 (CUS Mk2) and evolve two further lines, one for expander cycle and another using metholox using both GG and expander cycle.

Mk3's CUS is to be human rated. This one will not be the most powerful, but it will be the safer one. Here also engine development can go using staged combustion for both LOX/LOH and Metholox.

There is no one vs other. In cryo- engines, there is no zero sum game. And that requires investment and patience.
Ashokk
BRFite
Posts: 1116
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Ashokk »

Did a cryo upper stage process issue cause GSLV to fail?
Nearly a week after the GSLV-F10 mission failed after an anomaly in the cryogenic upper stage (CUS) resulted in non-ignition, the failure analysis committee (FAC) is in the process of recreating the flight through simulation to pinpoint the problem.
Sources in Isro said given that all the systems had performed as per requirement in all ground tests and this class of the launch vehicle had consecutive flawless launches in the past few years, the space agency feels the problem may not be in the engine.
Initial suspicions are that one of the processes of preparing the engine to do the job — propellant management, maintaining of pressure, inlet/input conditions et al — could have failed. And, if it is a process issue, then the corrections could be carried out in a shorter span of time compared to an engine issue, they said.
Isro chairman K Sivan told TOI: “There’s a huge amount of data. Various hypotheses will be tested through simulation with real hardware before concluding on what caused the anomaly. The FAC has been asked to submit the report by the end of this month.”
Pointing out that rocket systems are complex, Sivan said that some issues crop up during ground tests, and are always corrected before the launch, but there are some issues that only happen during the flight, as it happened last week.
“While the effect of such malfunction may be severe (failure of mission), the cause may actually turn out to be insignificant. Sometimes, the systems that appear to have a good margin during pre-launch tests and previous missions don’t perform as expected when launched. The GSLV-Mk2, for example, has had six consecutive successful flights before last week, which is why we think it may be a process issue. But that’s for the FAC to conclude,” Sivan added.
MK3 Corrections?
Further, if the problem is found with the CUS system process, Isro may even need to make corrections in the GSLV-Mk3, which will be used to launch the Chandrayaan-3 and Gaganyaan missions.
Sivan said there are two types of systems to deal with: First, the engine and architecture, which are different in Mk2 and Mk3. The second, some processes such as tank and propellent management, maintaining the tank condition (the right temperature, pressure etc), which are similar in all cryogenic stages.
He, however, pointed out that all missions of the Mk3 have so far been successful and that Isro is confident that the future schedules of this class of rockets won’t be affected.
“The engine powering the GSLV-Mk3 CUS, thermodynamics, and the gas cycle are all different, which is why there may be no direct impact on Mk3 missions we have lined up. However, given that it is a cryogenic stage, there are some aspects of the process that are similar, and if the problem is found with these, then we may need to carry out corrections in Mk3 too,” he added.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Adani, L&T in race for deal to make space launch vehicles.

Three entities — two consortia and a single firm — including an Adani-led group and another with L&T are in the race for the PSLV contract, which will, for the first time, see entities outside of Isro build a launch vehicle end-to-end.

The contract will be for building five launch vehicles and multiple sources confirmed to TOI that the three entities, on July 30, submitted their bids in response to an RFP (request for proposal) issued by New Space India Limited (NSIL).

A space-PSU operating under the department of space (DoS), NSIL was initially conceived to be a commercial arm of Isro, and later mandated with
productionising launch vehicles, owning satellites and more

“There were five players who responded to the EOI; three have submitted bids after the RFP just over three weeks ago,” a senior official said.

A consortium of HAL and L&T, another comprising Adani-Alpha Design, BEL and BEML are the two group entities, while BHEL has bid as a single firm. As per DoS, the contract will not only boost the Make-in-India initiative of the government, but will also enhance Isro’s ability to launch more satellites each year.

NSIL chairman and managing director Radhakrishnan D, said: “The techno-commercial evaluation is underway, after which the bids will be opened. We are hopeful of completing the whole process in a couple of months, and cannot comment on anything more at this juncture.”

One of the sources said that the contract is expected to be awarded by the end of this year and the selected entity will be a licenced producer.

While Isro has always worked closely with the industry — any PSLV launch sees more than 150 industries, big and small, contribute to the vehicle — this is for the first time that it will be completely built by the industry.

The PSLV, which had its first flight in September 1993, has been Isro’s workhorse having completed more than 50 launch missions over 25 years and the new initiative is NSIL, whose mandate has been expanded to own and operate capital-intensive assets — satellites and launch vehicles — has
plans of investing around Rs 10,000 crore over the next five years. The PSU, which has a paid up capital of Rs 10 crore and an authorised capital of Rs 100 crore, was allocated Rs 700 crore by the Centre in the 2021-22 budget.

In 2019-20, NSIL earned a revenue of around Rs 300 crore and while the official figures for 2020-21 are not out yet, the company was confident of more than Rs 300-crore.
Barath
BRFite
Posts: 474
Joined: 11 Feb 2019 19:06

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Barath »

disha wrote: Issues are with the GSLV MkII Staged Combustion- CUS. This one is more efficient, more powerful and is one of the most powerful CUS in the world.......
Mk3's CUS is to be human rated. This one will not be the most powerful, but it will be the safer one. Here also engine development can go using staged combustion for both LOX/LOH and Metholox.

There is no one vs other. In cryo- engines, there is no zero sum game. And that requires investment and patience.
Minor Correction. MK3 CE-20 is 200 kn Thrust. MK2 CE-7.5 is 75 kN thrust. Mk3 cryogenic stage is definitely more powerful; more thrust. What you were referencing is the efficiency CE-20 Isp ~443 s vs CE7.5 efficiency of 454 s . And the former is gas generator (which tends to be less efficient) vs the latter staged combustion (more efficient but also more complex in engineering). Of course, efficiency has gains elsewhere thanks to the rocket equation, while simplicity can sometimes help in reliability etc.

Also, IIRC, one of the ISRO seniors answered that downscaling the CE-20 engine for Mk2, would take many years to do and qualify. (implication being that they would prefer to spend that effort elsewhere).

The bigger picture is that reliability is big.

Mk2 may be cheaper than Mk 3, but it also throws less weight to GTO (~2.7T vs 4T) . And the bulk of the market hasn't gone to lighter electric satellites within throw weight of Mk2 payload (many are even above Mk III). Of course, many payloads are internal/indian and one might consider if the INSAT/GSAT etc would benefit (especially capability/price) from the greater throw weight of Mk III.

So it's not just 'we need both cryogenic engines', it's to look at what launchers would provide an optimal return for effort spent in ensuring reliability, uprating etc.
thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by thammu »

Sorry old report posted
Last edited by thammu on 06 Sep 2021 17:04, edited 1 time in total.
basant
BRFite
Posts: 889
Joined: 20 Mar 2020 20:58

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by basant »

So good to hear that design is not the issue. :)
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by arvin »

Thats a old report of 2006.
thammu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 79
Joined: 29 Mar 2007 08:16

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by thammu »

arvin wrote:Thats a old report of 2006.
Sorry, you are right.

Removed the report.
Indranil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8428
Joined: 02 Apr 2010 01:21

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Indranil »

Barath wrote:
disha wrote: Issues are with the GSLV MkII Staged Combustion- CUS. This one is more efficient, more powerful and is one of the most powerful CUS in the world.......
Mk3's CUS is to be human rated. This one will not be the most powerful, but it will be the safer one. Here also engine development can go using staged combustion for both LOX/LOH and Metholox.

There is no one vs other. In cryo- engines, there is no zero sum game. And that requires investment and patience.
Minor Correction. MK3 CE-20 is 200 kn Thrust. MK2 CE-7.5 is 75 kN thrust. Mk3 cryogenic stage is definitely more powerful; more thrust. What you were referencing is the efficiency CE-20 Isp ~443 s vs CE7.5 efficiency of 454 s . And the former is gas generator (which tends to be less efficient) vs the latter staged combustion (more efficient but also more complex in engineering). Of course, efficiency has gains elsewhere thanks to the rocket equation, while simplicity can sometimes help in reliability etc.

Also, IIRC, one of the ISRO seniors answered that downscaling the CE-20 engine for Mk2, would take many years to do and qualify. (implication being that they would prefer to spend that effort elsewhere).

The bigger picture is that reliability is big.

Mk2 may be cheaper than Mk 3, but it also throws less weight to GTO (~2.7T vs 4T) . And the bulk of the market hasn't gone to lighter electric satellites within throw weight of Mk2 payload (many are even above Mk III). Of course, many payloads are internal/indian and one might consider if the INSAT/GSAT etc would benefit (especially capability/price) from the greater throw weight of Mk III.

So it's not just 'we need both cryogenic engines', it's to look at what launchers would provide an optimal return for effort spent in ensuring reliability, uprating etc.
I would love for ISRO to stabilize the core on MKIII and then use different boosters for different payloads. So,
L110/SC120/SC200 + C20 stays as is.

But the solid boosters good be S12, S85, S139 or S200 can give us all the payloads from 1.5 Ton to 6 Ton range!
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

The Semi-Cryo engine was supposed to be ready by 2020. There is been no news about it so far. Can only hope that no news is not bad news.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18190
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 41793?s=20 ---> Australia will support India's Gaganyaan mission by tracking it through Cocos Keeling island.
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by mody »

https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/techands ... hp&pc=U531

ISRO planning to develop rockets to lift heavier loads. Loads between 6 to 16 tons upto GTO. GSLV MK3 would be upgraded to launch upto 7.5 Tons to GTO using SC120 semi-cryo engine, along with C32 cryo upper stage. New solid rockets boosters S250 also being planned to supplement the S200 boosters.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by kit »

https://asiapost.live/isros-new-series- ... ndia-news/

This major upgrade to India’s rocket is being made possible owing to the development of two kinds of rocket engines- a Semi-cryogenic engine that burns a special variant of Kerosene (dubbed ISROsene) and Liquid oxygen; and a Cryogenic engine that burns a mixture of Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The said Semi-Cryogenic engine stage is dubbed as SC120 and the upgraded cryogenic Engine Stage is dubbed as C32.

As per ISRO’s naming convention for rocket stages, the letter(s) refer to the type of engine fuel – Solid(S), Liquid(L), Semi-cryogenic(SC) and Cryogenic(C) and the accompanying number refers to the mass (in tons) of propellant carried. In simple words, a rocket is a combination of multiple engines(stages) that are vertically stacked.



“Soon the stage will be inducted into the rocket, then we need not depend on Foreign sources for the launch of heavy communication satellites(weighing over 4 or 5 tons),” Kumar said.

Image


ISRO’s new series of heavy-lift rockets to carry between 5-16 tons to Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit | India News
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Space Program: News & Discussion

Post by Vips »

Deatiled News Report: ISRO Heavy-lift Rockets.

To attain total self-reliance in the launch of heavy satellites (weighing above 4 tonnes) and to meet future demands, the Indian Space Research Organization is working on a fleet of five new rockets. According to a senior official, the five Heavy-lift Launch Vehicles (HLV) are in their project report stage.

In terms of design and appearance, this new fleet of rockets would be quite similar to the existing SSLV, PSLV and GSLV and GSLV Mk3 rockets, but they would be powered by even more capable, powerful and technologically advanced engines. Presently, India pays and utilises the services of Ariane-5, a foreign rocket, to launch satellites that weigh over 4 tonnes.

Speaking at a virtual event organised by ISRO and CII, N Sudheer Kumar, Director, Capacity Building Programme Office, ISRO, revealed that variants of this new fleet of heavy-lift rockets would be able to place a payload weighing anywhere between 4.9 tonnes and over 16 tonnes in the tonne synchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO). This is an enormous improvement over the current maximum lift capability of 4 tons that the GSLV Mk3 rocket has performed to GTO.

GTO is an intermediary orbit (180km at its closest point to the Earth and 36,000km at its farthest point from the Earth) into which heavy satellites are launched by rockets. After being placed in GTO, the satellites use their onboard propulsion to reach a circular orbit 36,000 km above the earth (it is at the same distance from the earth at any given point of time). Being in the 36,000km circular orbit (also known as Geostationary or GSO orbit) allows for communication and monitoring of a large portion of the Earth. three satellites in GSO orbit are capable of covering nearly the entire globe.

According to Kumar, the work to upgrade the lift capability of GSLV Mk3 to 7.5 tonnes to GTO, is on the verge of being concluded. This major upgrade to India’s rocket is being made possible owing to the development of two kinds of rocket engines: a semi-cryogenic engine that burns a special variant of kerosene (dubbed ISROsene) and liquid oxygen; and a cryogenic engine that burns a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The said semi-cryogenic engine stage is dubbed as the SC120, and the upgraded cryogenic engine stage is dubbed as the C32. As per ISRO’s naming convention for rocket stages, the letter (s) refers to the type of engine fuel-Solid (S), Liquid (L), Semi-cryogenic (SC) and Cryogenic (C) and the accompanying number refers to the mass (in tonnes) of propellant carried. Simply put, a rocket is a combination of multiple engines (stages) that are vertically stacked.

"Soon the stage will be inducted into the rocket, then we will not depend on foreign sources for the launch of heavy communication satellites (weighing over 4 or 5 tonnes)," Kumar said. Regarding ISRO’s ongoing projects, he outlined that work was underway on the full-scale model of the Reusable Launch Vehicle Technology Demonstrator (RLV-TD), besides work to scale up the proto-model of the air-breathing engine. For ISRO, these are crucial technologies to master to develop a fully reusable space vehicle dubbed the "TSTO," or Two Stage to Orbit.

The Director of ISRO’s CBPO also shared the configuration of the fleet of five heavy-lift rockets that were in their project report stage. The configurations refer to new and more powerful rocket stages-SC400 semi-cryogenic stage, the C27 cryogenic stage, and S250 solid rocket booster. Simply put, depending on the type of mission, payload to be lifted and rocket required, different variants of engines would be stacked vertically to run a relay race to space. Each stage would detach from the rocket after propelling the rocket to a certain altitude and speed, then the next engine would take over. This process goes on until the satellite (payload) reaches its final orbital destination.

In terms of materials, ISRO is said to be working on developing carbon-carbon composites, ceramic matrix composite for reusable vehicles, metal-foams for crash landing interplanetary probes, besides crucial components such as solar panels, fibre optics Atomic clocks, deployable antennas, lithium-ion batteries, Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) and Micro Electro Mechanical System (MEMS) Devices.
Post Reply