Indian Space Program Discussion

kit · Post by **kit** » 26 Dec 2010 09:12

arun wrote:Mr D. Sasi Kumar, former head of ISRO Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre quoted in the Deccan Chronicle on the likely cause of the GSLV FO6 launch failure:

“This is the most stupid thing to have happened to a space mission of this magnitude. From the TV visuals, I got a feeling that the strap-on rockets of the first stage got detached within seconds of lift-off,”

From here:

Isro blames side rockets; ‘carelessness’ in the air

I think ISRO is not that careless with its rockets.Having spoken to several engineers, i have got the assumption they are more like over cautious when launching rockets since they are high profile.But as in a democracy like India, there is always a possibility of deliberate sabotage by vested interests,but i dont want to go into that angle right away.Dont you guys think the launch centers would be adequately protected from long range electromagnetic interference as inferred ? Even if it is indeed sabotage do you think ISRO would acknowledge that ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Dec 2010 09:20

Remote possibility of sabotage. However very likely its a normal accident.

Three things have to occur.
- Complex system with close coupling of its components. A failure in one place propagates thru the system.
- Long periods of no problems.
- Leads to human factors of complacency.
This is what they are calling 'carelessness'.

Google book link
Normal Accidents

Charles Perrow.

also called System accident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_accident

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Dec 2010 09:23

Can we for starters list what is different about this flight than previous ones?

vina · Post by **vina** » 26 Dec 2010 09:58

Can we for starters list what is different about this flight than previous ones?

This GSLV flight is the largest and heaviest there was.

1) The length of the vehicle was increased by 2m or so
2) Propellant weight was increased by 3 tons in the CUS stage to 15tons (they flew with 12 tons in earlier flights).

My thought. What it will have done is change the natural vibrational modes/freq of the structure and probably some resonant modes /excitation frequencies could have been set up on the cabling bundles leading to ripping/fraying /coming off the mountings/couplings leading to loss of electrical connectivity in the cables.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Dec 2010 10:12

And dont forget the acoustic noise from the F/S ignition.

This 2 m and 3 ton increase was in the upper stage right? They probably did all the structural analyes.

Those cables are also called conduits and run along the side of the vehicle and relay the control signals. I dont think the cable connectors came loose as they can handle very severe loads and have pins to lock in place.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 26 Dec 2010 10:15

^^^^
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 80#p995980

GSLV rocket now taller, heavier
http://www.hindustantimes.com/GSLV-rock ... 39557.aspx

India's geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV), scheduled to blast off on Monday with an advanced communication satellite (GSAT-5P), is now taller by two metres and heavier by four tonnes as compared to its standard configuration. The Indian Space Research Organisation's standard configuration for the GSLV rocket is a height of 49 metres and 414 tonnes in weight at lift-off.

The rocket that would lift off Monday stands 51 metres tall and weighs 418 tonnes.

PS Veeraraghavan, director of the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, told IANS: "This time the fuel quantity for the cryogenic engine has increased and its thrust power has also gone up. The rocket will be carrying a heavier satellite (GSAT-5P) weighing 2,310 kg."

The Russian made cryogenic engine will be powered with 15.2 tonnes of fuel (liquid hydrogen as fuel and liquid oxygen as oxidizer), an increase of around three tonnes, and the engine's length has also increased.

The rocket has a bigger heat shield - four-metres in diameter and made of fibre reinforced plastic (FRP) - as compared to the standard configuration of 3.4-metre diameter made of aluminium alloy metal.

With the changes in rocket's configuration, necessary calibrations have been carried out in the rocket's navigational systems, control dynamics and aerodynamics so that the flight is smooth and the mission is successful, a source associated with ISRO told IANS.

Over the years, the carrying capacity of the GSLV has also increased -- from 1,530 kg in 2001 for GSAT-1 to 2,220 kg for GSAT-4 in April 2010.

The latest has a payload of 2,310 kg with 36 transponders -- an automatic receiver and transmitter of communication or broadcast signals. Successful launch of the satellite will take the agency's transponder capacity to around 235 from 200 in orbit now.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2010 10:22

I think they can safeguard around 120 crores by launching just a dummy payload until this thing is *standardized* like PSLV - in every GSLV so far there seem to have been changes probably....let the indic CUS come online and the entire thing be standardized. each new tinkering introduces risks like Vina writes.

I dont think they should make a H&D issue out of launching a real satellite in each shot. the Tejas mk1 is IOC but it wont be doing a wartime role anytime soon.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 26 Dec 2010 10:30

Second Failure of Indian Satellite Rocket GSLV
Dec 26th, 2010
Sunday Times of India - Delhi Edition
Posted @ http://viewstonews.com/index.php/second ... technology

Second Failure of Indian Satellite Rocket GSLV , The second failure of the Geo-Synchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) in a span of six months is expected to have a serious impact on Isro’s three important space programmes, according to space scientists here. On April 15 this year, a GSLV, powered for the first time with an indigenous cryogenic engine, failed. On Saturday, the mission flopped following a technical snag in the first stage of the rocket.

Speaking to STOI, TIFR space scientist M N Vahia, who has had a long association with Isro, specifically mentioned three projects which could suffer a temporary setback — the Rs 425-crore second Indian moon mission, Chandrayaan-2, which will be flown by the GSLV. “Well, Saturday’s failure will certainly produce delays in the second lunar programme. If my payload was being flown on this mission using a GSLV, I would certainly want this rocket to be tested and evaluated more thoroughly,” he said. As of now, the mission is slated for lift off in 2013.

Also to be affected could be the nearly Rs 13,000 crore human space flight mission, for which a formal green signal is still awaited from the government, Vahia said. Isro chairman K Radhakrishnan has been quoted as saying that this flight will take off around 2015.

According to Vahia, there could be delays in launching India’s communication satellites from Sriharikota because Isro is running out of cryogenic engines. With just one Russian cryogenic engine left, Isro is in a position to schedule just a single flight of the GSLV firmly in future. The Indian cryogenic engine is not operational. The question arises whether the space agency will have to depend on foreign launchers like Ariane for some more time to carry its communication satellites.

“What happened on Saturday afternoon at Sriharikota was an unnerving situation because India’s reputation as a reliable space launching country has taken a serious dent,” said Vahia.

Secretary of India chapter of Moon Society, Pradeep Mohandas, said: “If I were the vehicle director, I would subject all the stages of the GSLV to more exhaustive tests again before launching a flight.”

Nehru Planetarium director Piyush Pandey expressed confidence that the GSLV will be used for Chandrayaan-2 though he felt “there could be a marginal delay if not a major one.”

The most affected by these two GSLV failures are the scientists of Isro’s Ahmedabad-based Space Application Centre whose payloads flown by this rocket have headed for the sea rather than the sky. The GSat-4, with important payloads which was carried by the GSLV, went into the Bay of Bengal on April 15 followed by GSat-5P on Saturday.

It is in this context that Pandey’s remark assumes significance when he said that the next flight of the GSLV should have a dud satellite rather than an operational one which will allow the rocket to be tested.

According to other space scientists the weight of the GSat-5P, which was 2,310kg, resulted in Indian and Russian engineers having to modify the parts of the rocket to lift the satellite which is the heaviest payload ever to be flown by an Indian rocket.

Eminent astrophysicist S M Chitre however sounded a note of optimism when he said: “We will succeed and we should not give up the capabilities of the GSLV.”

Rangudu · Post by **Rangudu** » 26 Dec 2010 10:42

Unfortunate that strap on booster failure possibly destroyed a launch of this magnitude. We need to keep at it though because having the ability to launch 2+ tons of Geo payload is indispensable for becoming a top-tier space exlploring nation.

Does anyone have any idea of success/failure rates for US, Russia etc. before they perfected Geo launches?

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 26 Dec 2010 10:43

My thought. What it will have done is change the natural vibrational modes/freq of the structure and probably some resonant modes /excitation frequencies could have been set up on the cabling bundles leading to ripping/fraying /coming off the mountings/couplings leading to loss of electrical connectivity in the cables.

I also thought the same, but again it wont happen unless GSLV had severe aerodynamic penalties which created this vibration? But what caused this is the question

Harish · Post by **Harish** » 26 Dec 2010 10:56

arun wrote:Mr D. Sasi Kumar, former head of ISRO Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre quoted in the Deccan Chronicle on the likely cause of the GSLV FO6 launch failure:

“This is the most stupid thing to have happened to a space mission of this magnitude. From the TV visuals, I got a feeling that the strap-on rockets of the first stage got detached within seconds of lift-off,”

From here:

Isro blames side rockets; ‘carelessness’ in the air

Excuse me - the strap-on boosters just fell off? You mean, like, they weren't screwed on tightly enough?

I could see nothing of the sort in either of those videos.

vina · Post by **vina** » 26 Dec 2010 11:03

Singha wrote:I think they can safeguard around 120 crores by launching just a dummy payload until this thing is *standardized* like PSLV - in every GSLV so far there seem to have been changes probably....let the indic CUS come online and the entire thing be standardized.

To be fair to them the "base" version of the GSLV with the 12T loading CUS Russian stage and all that has been "proven" with two successful launches. The "Development" phase is over ( those vehicles have D1, D2 etc, this was the follow up series. F XXX) and what they are having is the "struggle" with the enhanced/improved versions. The last two failures have been with 1) A brand new experimental CUS and 2) A different from proven configuration, so two rather "experimental" launches that failed.

vina · Post by **vina** » 26 Dec 2010 11:08

symontk wrote:I also thought the same, but again it wont happen unless GSLV had severe aerodynamic penalties which created this vibration? But what caused this is the question

Nothing specific needs to "cause" it. The natural vibration modes will be set up as it flies.It is inherent something like a spring-mass system (F = -kx ), will have a natural frequency and vibrate at that if excited (sort of like the tuning fork experiment in high school to find the resonance length in the string at which the paper clips fly off) .Only thing that can be done is 1) Avoid them and/or 2) Isolate them
/ damp them so that it doesn't sc**w your happiness.

Matt Stone · Post by **Matt Stone** » 26 Dec 2010 11:15

Mort Walker wrote:Do we know if the control signal was an electrical one or mechanical control that failed?

If it is electrical, then the possibility of an enemy (or supposedly friendly country) could have used a powerful enough RF pulse aimed at the GSLV shortly after launch. A powerful well focused pulse can penetrate the skin of a rocket, and thereby create a voltage on an electrical control line causing interference. As modern electronics are now below 5v levels, shielding becomes an issue and you can do it, but there is a trade-off with increased weight. Powerful ship based EW anti-missile systems do exist and are operational.

Its an electrical failure i think

"The GSLV-F06 flight on Saturday has also ended in failure because a command to control the vehicle did not reach the actuator in the first stage of the vehicle. This vehicle carried a Russian cryogenic stage in the third topmost stage."

ISRO chief yesterday clearly sated that the control signal from on board computer didn't reach the actuator

My assumption:
*May be data bus/communication link got damaged b/w them which may be due to change in conditions like temp,pressure etc which might have caused failure.. Or it may be a purely software problem on board. *

And regarding EMP burst, it may happen but i think isro will have sufficient security and will watch the radio space over the region.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 26 Dec 2010 11:25

I think one of the reason why they use Real Payload in development rocket is because even kg put into space cost lot of money and they do not want to let go the opportunity to put a real useful payload in GEO orbit rather then go for couple of sucessful launches with dummy or semi-dummy ( experimental ) payload.

Its a high risk high return approach , if the flight is successful you end up with reliable launch vehical and usable satellite for that launch , if the flight is unsucessful you loose both.

I wont be surprised if the next launch of GSLV carries a real payload of less significant nature , the high risk high reward approach has been the hallmark of Space and Missile program , to test most things in one mission.

Hopefully as Ashok stated ( Thanks Ashok ) they would recover the full amount from insurance and financial loss is minimal.

Matt Stone · Post by **Matt Stone** » 26 Dec 2010 11:53

Who told you people that it is insured ? :o

The combined cost of the rocket and satellite today was Rs 325 crore but like other launches undertaken from India, the current mission too was not insured, Isro spokesperson S. Satish said.

Transponder bill

Isro sources, however, admitted that something had to be done to offset the loss of the GSAT-5P, India’s heaviest satellite that was to be put into orbit today.

The immediate fallout of the crash, therefore, could be that India may have to lease several satellite transponders from international service providers, each at about Rs 4.5 crore a year.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101226/j ... 350923.jsp

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 26 Dec 2010 12:11

All experimental and development flights of workhorse PSLV have been with proper payloads. No reason why GSLV should be treated any differently.

nits · Post by **nits** » 26 Dec 2010 12:45

Matt Stone wrote:Who told you people that it is insured ? :o
The combined cost of the rocket and satellite today was Rs 325 crore but like other launches undertaken from India, the current mission too was not insured, Isro spokesperson S. Satish said.

Transponder bill

Isro sources, however, admitted that something had to be done to offset the loss of the GSAT-5P, India’s heaviest satellite that was to be put into orbit today.

The immediate fallout of the crash, therefore, could be that India may have to lease several satellite transponders from international service providers, each at about Rs 4.5 crore a year.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101226/j ... 350923.jsp

Simple reason its not insured IMO is, In india only govermnet insurance companies go for space launch insurance... so in any case if launch fails its the gvermnet only who foots the bill.

But then also i feel ISRO shoud go for it so that ISRO as a 'agency' will get back the money and its budget will not get impacted...

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 26 Dec 2010 12:55

disha wrote:
AdityaM wrote:why do experimental rockets carry real & costly satellites?
Why cant they cary dummy load to test the rocket first, just like every test Agni doesn't carry a live warhead
First of all are you sure that Agni carries a "dummy" warhead and not a warhead with its pit removed? Just because you do not see a huge nuke explosion does not mean that the warhead is entirely dummy.
Coming to ISRO, also what about the case where the rocket actually succeeds and is able to insert the dummy in the GTO orbit? What you get is a space debris at a high orbit! Will take several decades for it to come down. Also the cost for preparing the dummy and preparing the actual satellite may not be much more in the Indian context., and by making more satellites and reusing some of their parts one can benefit from economies of scale.

[/size]
What i said was fairly simple. no need to dissect it to the pits!
Maybe they can have retrievable load that parachutes back after launch & may contain flight data as well. If there is a need felt for it, they will come up with something.
Some posts above quote real experts also asking for dummy loads

disha wrote: Just to assure you the guys at ISRO are rocket scientists with their share of failures. We as a nation go into collective paroxysms and self-flagellation for every small failures - little realising that several such failures are stepping stones to success.

[/size]
Hope its not directed towards me; All i asked was a simple Q. we all are proud of ISRO & its dedicated employees

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 26 Dec 2010 12:58

ramana wrote:Can we for starters list what is different about this flight than previous ones?

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/ ... satellite/

The vehicle launching GSAT-5P was taller by two metres and heavier by four tonnes as compared to its standard configuration. The Russian made cryogenic engine was powered with 15.2 tonnes of fuel (liquid hydrogen as fuel and liquid oxygen as oxidizer), an increase of around three tonnes, and the engine’s length also increased.

The rocket had a larger fairing - four-metres in diameter and made of fibre reinforced plastic (FRP) – as compared to the standard configuration of 3.4-metre diameter fairing made from aluminium alloy metal.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2010 13:14

whatever config they select on for next flight, I think they need to stick to it until a series of 3 consecutive success is achieved at same config - that will establish a baseline. for payload maybe just orbit a large but cheap sputnik type "beep beep" sat or give univs a chance to send up modules until 3 successive test flights succeed.

the chinese are well past this stage and proving even heavier payloads....we do need a gslv to orbit both heavy commercial (GTO) and spy satellites (into MEO) and also future space labs and such....

kit · Post by **kit** » 26 Dec 2010 13:21

Singha wrote:whatever config they select on for next flight, I think they need to stick to it until a series of 3 consecutive success is achieved at same config - that will establish a baseline. for payload maybe just orbit a large but cheap sputnik type "beep beep" sat or give univs a chance to send up modules until 3 successive test flights succeed.

the chinese are well past this stage and proving even heavier payloads....we do need a gslv to orbit both heavy commercial (GTO) and spy satellites (into MEO) and also future space labs and such....

Absolutely right.I hope ISRO can do the failure assessment in consultation with the Russians and go on to the next launch fairly quickly.Lots at stake here.So funding should not be an issue.

ravar · Post by **ravar** » 26 Dec 2010 13:27

The FRP heat shield with 4m dia was there for GSLV D3 flight as well.

It had proven itself in its first flight (unless of course, the lengthening of the 3rd stage in F06 could have altered the aerodynamics and hence might need a revisit)

manish.rastogi · Post by **manish.rastogi** » 26 Dec 2010 14:05

Currently a lot of gurus are here so i would like to take the opportunity......my question is not related to the current failure of the isro launch but i want to ask about the complications and nuances in manufacturing space ships and its components.
My rant in particular is that why do we have merely 2-3 launches in a year....?!??

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2010 14:31

funds and manpower I guess. ISRO budgets are very small in comparison to other space faring nations. atleast we have two full launch pads in S'kota now, allowing preparations in parallel for unrelated launches. so a disaster in pad wont block us.

ravar · Post by **ravar** » 26 Dec 2010 14:35

ISRO teams analysing data to pinpoint GSLV failure

After the failure yesterday, top ISRO officials said the command to control the space rocket (GSLV-F06), carrying GSAT-5P, from the equipment bay, the electronic brain of the launch vehicle resident atop it, did not reach the actuators in the first stage.

They suspected that a connector chord, which takes the signal down, had snapped.

{then goes on to mention}
...The FAC comprising multi-disciplinary experts concluded at the time that the primary cause for the failure was the sudden loss of thrust in one out of the four liquid propellant strap-on stages (S4) immediately after lift-off at 0.2 sec.

With only three strap-on stages working, there was significant reduction in the control capability.

However, the vehicle altitude could be controlled till about 50 seconds. At the same time, the vehicle reached the transonic regime of flight and the vehicle altitude errors built up to large values, resulting in aerodynamic loads exceeding the design limits thus leading to break up of the vehicle....

Indications of multiple causes? Or the L40 inadequate thrust being the primary cause which later snowballed into systemic failures including the snapping of the chord (incidental to the vehicle breaking up)?

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 26 Dec 2010 14:48

^^^
Regarding Strapon malfunction, they are referring to the 2006 failure of GSLV. IIRC it was attributed to manufacturing defect.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 26 Dec 2010 15:00

ravar wrote:ISRO teams analysing data to pinpoint GSLV failure

After the failure yesterday, top ISRO officials said the command to control the space rocket (GSLV-F06), carrying GSAT-5P, from the equipment bay, the electronic brain of the launch vehicle resident atop it, did not reach the actuators in the first stage.

They suspected that a connector chord, which takes the signal down, had snapped.

{then goes on to mention}
...The FAC comprising multi-disciplinary experts concluded at the time that the primary cause for the failure was the sudden loss of thrust in one out of the four liquid propellant strap-on stages (S4) immediately after lift-off at 0.2 sec.

With only three strap-on stages working, there was significant reduction in the control capability.

However, the vehicle altitude could be controlled till about 50 seconds. At the same time, the vehicle reached the transonic regime of flight and the vehicle altitude errors built up to large values, resulting in aerodynamic loads exceeding the design limits thus leading to break up of the vehicle....
Indications of multiple causes? Or the L40 inadequate thrust being the primary cause which later snowballed into systemic failures including the snapping of the chord (incidental to the vehicle breaking up)?

Actually it makes sense, and if its a repeat of plumbing issue of L-40 as in 2006, its reflects QA being bad

ravar · Post by **ravar** » 26 Dec 2010 15:10

You are right, though the particular report fails to mention it to F 02

Nevertheless, I would not discount the role of L40s in this flight as well. Redux probably, QC being the main culprit.

This also has been an irritant that they had been trying to rectify (i.e., all S4s providing the same amount of thrust in unison), as per info from a few birdies

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 26 Dec 2010 16:02

ravar wrote:ISRO teams analysing data to pinpoint GSLV failure

Quote:
After the failure yesterday, top ISRO officials said the command to control the space rocket (GSLV-F06), carrying GSAT-5P, from the equipment bay, the electronic brain of the launch vehicle resident atop it, did not reach the actuators in the first stage.

They suspected that a connector chord, which takes the signal down, had snapped.

{then goes on to mention}
...The FAC comprising multi-disciplinary experts concluded at the time that the primary cause for the failure was the sudden loss of thrust in one out of the four liquid propellant strap-on stages (S4) immediately after lift-off at 0.2 sec.

With only three strap-on stages working, there was significant reduction in the control capability.

However, the vehicle altitude could be controlled till about 50 seconds. At the same time, the vehicle reached the transonic regime of flight and the vehicle altitude errors built up to large values, resulting in aerodynamic loads exceeding the design limits thus leading to break up of the vehicle....

Indications of multiple causes? Or the L40 inadequate thrust being the primary cause which later snowballed into systemic failures including the snapping of the chord (incidental to the vehicle breaking up)?

Not multiple failure ... series of successive actions.

Connector for one of the strap-ons seems to have not withstood liftoff vibration/jerk. The connector itself would not have failed because they are space qualified. If the connector is not put in position properly then even the best connector will be of no use. It is not manufacturer's fault or system design failure. It is ( as Sasi observed ) is pure negligence.

This break in connectivity has not allowed that one strap-on to function and the secondary failure due to overloading of 3 remaining strap ons. In fact keeping of trajectory for some time indicated the robustness of fault tolerant control system design.

==========

There are some posts about using wireless connectivity.

The rocket has totally autonomous and self contained control system after the umbilical chord snap a few seconds before actual ignition ... there is no control from ground during launch .. only monitoring.

Since it is an autonomous process what is wrong with robust physical connectivity between components than vulnerable and complex/bulky wireless connectivity?

==========

vehicle altitude errors built up to large values, resulting in aerodynamic loads exceeding the design limits thus leading to break up of the vehicle....

The breakup is not due to stresses ..
... if you listen to the launch video there is a clear voice announcing .... " command executed " ... the only command that the operator can manually give is the most revered and protected red button for "kill the mission" .. rest all is a closed loop autonomous control program within the body of rocket.

This is manual intervention of destruction is executed by one of the coolest head in launch team ..

==========

Dog leg maneuver will of course need extra fuel but that kind of steering is within normal cruising capability of the launch vehicle and is carried out on every single launch from SHAR. So there is no point in blaming it as extra stress on the system .. it is part of the game.

Shankar · Post by **Shankar** » 26 Dec 2010 16:08

just guessing wildly: could the control cables have snapped because of cryogenic fluids spilling on them - the earlier launch delay was attributed to a leaky (LOX?) valve in the cryogenic stage.
-the earlier problem was one of cryogenic valve leakage - both lox and lh2 immediately vaporizes when coming out at atmpsphere temperature so cannot spill and cause failure .And the leakage was as far as i can make out a seat leakage and not a body leakage causing leak tightness across seat and spilling in to outside .This leaks when happen is very very small not like a torrent as media will makes out

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 26 Dec 2010 16:13

^^^^

True Shankar dada

Cryo is third stage .. the connector problem is in first stage.

There is large physical distance between the two and as rightly pointed out by you the "pouring" the liquid at atmospheric temperatures is a misconception.

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 26 Dec 2010 16:53

In india only govermnet insurance companies go for space launch insurance

And which is that GOI company?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 26 Dec 2010 17:22

awst - a small example of how highly the P5 value their space and engine techs

French Economy Stimulus Includes Aerospace

Dec 17, 2010

By Michael A. Taverna
Paris

Enabling technologies for a new satellite launcher and medium-lift helicopter and an aero-engine demonstrator are among the projects set to benefit from the first stage of a €35-billion ($46.2-billion) French government bond issue intended to help stimulate the country’s sputtering economy.

The program, presented in late 2009 and approved by lawmakers in mid-year, recently moved into the implementation phase. Thirty work package proposals have already been submitted, says Rene Ricol, the government’s director for public investment.

Among them is a six-project package for a civil aero-engine demonstrator, called Epice, proposed by Corac, an industry group formed in 2008 to help implement Europe’s Acare sustainable aerospace development agenda. Epice is intended to set the stage for a new generation of engines that could power future air transports such as the Airbus A30X, business jets and other aircraft.

The projects include design and validation of a woven composite fan blade and ceramic-matrix-composite propulsion system components, nacelle/integration and systems engineering to support new engine concepts. Six additional Epice projects will be proposed next year covering turbine technology, pylons and two inflight demonstrations.

The cost of the projects has not been divulged, but a Corac demonstrator wish list of technologies presented last year totaled €800 million. A composite demonstrator proposal has also been submitted, according to the French aerospace industries association (Gifas). The price tag for this is roughly €1 billion.

A package of space proposals also was submitted. In addition to a wide-swath altimeter called SWOT, to be developed with NASA, and a methane-monitoring spacecraft, to be co-funded by Germany, this package includes new telecom and Earth-observation bus architectures and the e-Corce high-resolution remote-sensing constellation (AW&ST Oct. 4, p. 77)..

Some work packages have already moved beyond the proposal stage. At a visit to a Safran/Snecma space propulsion plant in Vernon, north of Paris, last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy said the government has OK’d initial spending to support the new X4 helicopter that will replace Eurocopter’s Dauphin. Eurocopter has said it expects €250-300 million to flow toward blade, engine, avionics and other underlying X4 technologies (AW&ST July 26, p. 44).

Sarkozy said the government also released €82.5 million to the CNES space agency to begin work on technologies for a Next-Generation Launcher (NGL) that will complement or replace the Ariane 5. He confirmed that €500 million will be made available for space projects—half for the NGL and the rest for new satellite technology.

The president also says the government will go ahead with a €2-billion investment to make high-speed broadband available throughout the country by 2025. Sarkozy did not specifically mention MegaSat, a €250-million satellite project proposed as part of the initiative; however, while unveiling initial broadband projects this month, Prime Minister Francois Fillon said the undertaking will have to exploit all available technologies, including satellites.

In an interview last week in Les Echos, a Parisian daily, investment czar Ricol said the government intends to disburse €15-20 billion for work packages by the end of next year. He estimates that the total leverage effect of the program—through matching spending by industry, government and the European Union—would be double the amount raised in the bond issue, and that the bulk of the money would represent investments, not subsidies

vic · Post by **vic** » 26 Dec 2010 19:39

French Economy Stimulus Includes Aerospace

Dec 17, 2010

By Michael A. Taverna
Paris

Enabling technologies for a new satellite launcher and medium-lift helicopter and an aero-engine demonstrator are among the projects set to benefit from the first stage of a €35-billion ($46.2-billion) French government bond issue intended to help stimulate the country’s sputtering economy.

Among them is a six-project package for a civil aero-engine demonstrator, called Epice, proposed by Corac, an industry group formed in 2008 to help implement Europe’s Acare sustainable aerospace development agenda. Epice is intended to set the stage for a new generation of engines that could power future air transports such as the Airbus A30X, business jets and other aircraft.

The projects include design and validation of a woven composite fan blade and ceramic-matrix-composite propulsion system components, nacelle/integration and systems engineering to support new engine concepts. Six additional Epice projects will be proposed next year covering turbine technology, pylons and two inflight demonstrations.

The cost of the projects has not been divulged, but a Corac demonstrator wish list of technologies presented last year totaled €800 million. A composite demonstrator proposal has also been submitted, according to the French aerospace industries association (Gifas). The price tag for this is roughly €1 billion.

At a visit to a Safran/Snecma space propulsion plant in Vernon, north of Paris, last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy said the government has OK’d initial spending to support the new X4 helicopter that will replace Eurocopter’s Dauphin. Eurocopter has said it expects €250-300 million to flow toward blade, engine, avionics and other underlying X4 technologies (AW&ST July 26, p. 44).

Sarkozy said the government also released €82.5 million to the CNES space agency to begin work on technologies for a Next-Generation Launcher (NGL) that will complement or replace the Ariane 5. He confirmed that €500 million will be made available for space projects—half for the NGL and the rest for new satellite technology.

India should get involved in aforesaid projects by funding 50% of the cost rather than continuing getting ripped off by xyz (If I name xyz then it will lead to flame war)

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 26 Dec 2010 20:37

SSSalvi wrote:^^^^

True Shankar dada

Cryo is third stage .. the connector problem is in first stage.

There is large physical distance between the two and as rightly pointed out by you the "pouring" the liquid at atmospheric temperatures is a misconception.

The connector break could be at the (avionics) equipment bay end, which I believe is in much closer proximity to the cryo stage and payload.

ravar · Post by **ravar** » 26 Dec 2010 20:53

Good news with regard to L40s...

S4s worked as expected, says Chairman. [Hence, we can overrule that possibility]

We learn from failures: ISRO head

All the four liquid strap on motors worked as expected and the mission was still in the first stage, he added.

Arunkumar · Post by **Arunkumar** » 26 Dec 2010 21:59

If L40s worked properly then thats good news.
Me feels ISRO has perfected the zero,first and second stage and there was no problem there. The variable was the third stage with additional propellant loading and other changes.
Agree with shankar,the reported leakage during the first attempt might have some thing to do with connectors in the third stage going brittle and breaking due to vibration after take-off.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Dec 2010 01:02

Perhaps ISRO needs more super computing power to resolve many issues, and for the ones in the future that may surface.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 27 Dec 2010 01:14

SaiK wrote:Perhaps ISRO needs more super computing power to resolve many issues, and for the ones in the future that may surface.

Is there any indication that the problem was due to lack of on ground processing power?