Indian Space Program Discussion

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 27 Dec 2010 02:05

India has 170 teraflops number cruncher, PSLV was 15 times successful out of 17.

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 27 Dec 2010 02:11

^^
Exactly my point.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Dec 2010 04:36

Launch Failure: Pressure now on ISRO's cryogenic project - Business Line
Excerpts

“This (the December 25 loss) is a setback. We had not expected this to fail,” admitted Mr S. Satish, ISRO's Director for Public Relations and spokesman.

Asked if the Indian cryogenic stage that is being fine-tuned after the initial failure was being put on the fast track, he said it would be known in the coming days.

“There is no issue for the next one-and-a-half years,” Mr Satish told Business Line. “We should be comfortable with what we have. Thereafter, hopefully we should have our own [cryogenic stage] by then.”

According to him, the next GSLV was not due for at least 12-15 months. The last Russian stage would be used for the communication satellite that will come up for flight towards the end of 2011-12.

The Indian cryo stage is being ground-tested at its centres in Thiruvananthapuram. “We have identified the problem with the first flight” that failed in April, he said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Dec 2010 06:07

I don't see the need for pressure. The more important task is to do RCA on current issues and resolve the old ones on the cryo.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 27 Dec 2010 08:36

Hardware defect suspected for rocket failure
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 169237.cms

BANGALORE: Initial analysis of the data from Saturday's aborted launch of an Indian rocket indicated a hardware defect might have forced the destruction of the geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV-F06), a senior space agency official said late Sunday.

"Experts analysing the voluminous data are of the view that a hardware problem or defect has led to the snapping of the four connectors (signal chords) resulting in the blowing up of the rocket in the first stage itself," the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) official told IANS.

Hinting at what might have happened after a perfect lift-off in less than a minute, the official said that the mission failed after the link got snapped resulting in the 418-tonne rocket going out of control and forcing the mission control centre to give the destruct command.

"The signals are transmitted from the flight control system in the equipment bay to various propulsion stages to control the rocket. In this flight, the data shows that signal link got snapped. The moment we noticed the rocket breaking up, the destruct command was given to ensure that the debris did not fall on the land but in the sea," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Seventh in the GSLV series, the 51-metre tall rocket, carrying the 2.3-tonne advanced communications satellite (GSAT-5P) with 36 transponders, exploded barely a minute after it blasted off from the spaceport of state-run ISRO at Sriharikota, about 80 km northeast of Chennai.

According to initial reports, the launch vehicle lost control and began to wobble due to heavy structural loads gushing up earlier than anticipated when it was at an altitude of 8 km in space and 2.5 km from the spaceport coastline over the Bay of Bengal.

It burst into flames 63 seconds after lift-off.

"Though the four strap-on motors in the first stage and the solid stage propellant fired as programmed, the rocket began to deviate from the flight path and wobble. Initial results showed that the connectors that take control commands and signals from the on-board computer did not reach the electronics actuation stage," the official pointed out.

Saturday's launch was originally scheduled for Nov 20 but was aborted a day earlier after a leak was detected in one of the valves of the rocket's Russian-made cryogenic engine.

Meanwhile, ISRO director S. Satish said the data analysis of the aborted mission was continuing to ascertain what went wrong in the rocket's flight control system.

"The experts are hopeful of getting a clear picture in a day or two to submit the initial report on the accident in space," Satish said.

After studying the report, the space agency will constitute a failure analysis committee (FAC) later this week to go into the exact causes that led to the rocket failure in the first stage itself and make recommendations for preventing their recurrences in the forthcoming missions.

"As in the case of any mission failure, it is customary for the FAC to ascertain the reasons behind the disintegration of the rocket and the corrective measures that have to be taken for ensuring a successful launch of the satellites," Satish noted.

The Rs.300 crore project was meant to retire the INSAT-2E satellite, sent up in 1999. The failure comes nine months after the previous rocket - GSAT-D3 - failed April 15

kit · Post by **kit** » 27 Dec 2010 09:05

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

Why would you say that ? Maybe a petaflop supercomputer can analyse all that data and come up with an answer faster.Human intellect , i think ISRO has lots of premium brain power. Does anyone know what kind of processing power ISRO uses for fault analysis ?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Dec 2010 09:20

Kit, he means computing power for coupled analysis. From the above report the loads were earlier and or greater than anticipated.

SaiK may be difficult, but he means no harm or snide remarks.

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 27 Dec 2010 09:24

To me it looks like ISRO could recover most of the lost ground, by being bold and decisive, once the failure analysis and the fix is in place, the next flight should be with an indigenous cryo.
From PR point of view such a flight should be projected and sold to the media/public/GOI as a purely experimental/development flight ( which it is any way ).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Dec 2010 09:35

TSS writes again

GSLV failures fuel disappointment and anxiety

...
There is disappointment among ISRO's rocket technologists that the GSLV mission on December 25 failed because of “a very, very trivial issue.” They said it failed because the signal from the equipment bay, which houses the electronic brain of the vehicle and is housed atop the rocket, to control the vehicle, did not reach the first stage. A bunch of wires, running to more than 45 metres, convey these signals from the equipment bay and the wires terminate in the three stages of the vehicle. Since these wires are so long, they are connected by devices called connectors, which are akin to plugs and sockets. It is these connectors that hold these wires in place.

An authoritative ISRO rocket technologist said four such connectors came loose or were prised open because of “some disturbance” in the flight and so the wires, which convey the signal for controlling the rocket, lost their continuity. “If some connectors open up, the wires will not have continuity. It is a very, very trivial issue. So the command for controlling the rocket from the equipment bay did not reach the first stage. An uncontrolled rocket will fail. That is what happened. We are in the investigation mode,” he said.

“Simple problem”

Another top rocket engineer also said the connectors coming loose was “a simple problem that did the mission in” and that the rocket's design was basically sound.
....

Again refer back to the Google book on system accident. Wish these guys spent time in reading such materials. They wouldn't say things like that.

--------------
juvva, Its not a PR issue. Wish TSS does some good writing.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Dec 2010 09:45

Next question is why did the connectors break? Did they break at the junction box or did the cable snap midway? What aero loads lead to this situation? Don't the connectors have detent pin feature to preclude backing out under the expected aero-loads?

juvva · Post by **juvva** » 27 Dec 2010 09:51

^vibration/resonance more likely... I think

Jayram · Post by **Jayram** » 27 Dec 2010 09:52

recall some gora was complaining about the lack of vibration testing done during chandrayan's launch to meet the tight deadlines after integration with some foriegn module or the other.. It was mentioned then that ISRO cutting corners like this was not good but we are like this only view prevaled..I wonder if this failure is related to some lacuna in that area.. Howver ISRO has pulled off many many sucessfull launches and dont know how relevant and simplistic my observation is..

Vivek K · Post by **Vivek K** » 27 Dec 2010 10:05

I hope that ISRO will take its time to run a thorough analysis and not cave in to pressure to "produce" an answer quickly.

John · Post by **John** » 27 Dec 2010 10:09

IMO no regards to this incident GOI should do its best to encourage private companies get in space launch business, the increased competition from these companies should help ISRO in the long run.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Dec 2010 10:16

ashokpachori wrote:In india only govermnet insurance companies go for space launch insurance

And which is that GOI company?

The 4 PSU insurers.

The Pvt sector insurers usually decline the Space risks. The retention capacity of Indian Re company GIC Re is also not adequate to carry the Space risk so it gets ceded to the foriegn reinsurers and syndicates such as loyds.

Regards

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2010 10:24

The happiest news is that we have only one Russian engine left. The only way we can move forward is self reliance. All rockets are controlled bombs. This one went out of control. But an imported cryo engine is an imported bomb. We need to make our own bombs. A string of successes is fluke in the early stages but "reliability" later on -like PSLV

A 50% failure rate (like GSLV) means it needs work. No?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 27 Dec 2010 11:03

I have a wealthy friend who lost 2 crores (nearly half million US dollars) in the Dubai property crash. He looked pretty cheerful at a party and I asked him and he said that if 3 out of 6 of his investments succeed it is enough for him to make money overall - so even 3 failed investments is part of the game.

I recall a talk I attended in which ISROs costs were being mentioned. It is overall far cheaper to test by launching for ISRO. Even the cost of a failed rocket and satellite do are not so high that costs overall remain competitive. I am impressed by the degree of telemetry that is maintained on these launches enabling a detailed failure analysis. That is what a failure free future rests upon.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 27 Dec 2010 11:54

I don't think shiv ji, we need a reasoning with an example like this., and I don't think we can put a value for process maturity.

nits · Post by **nits** » 27 Dec 2010 13:52

ashokpachori wrote:In india only govermnet insurance companies go for space launch insurance

And which is that GOI company?

Check this Link - Details below

Indian Space Research Organisation spokesperson S Krishnamurthy confirmed - "We have not insured satellites that are launched from India. But we have insured every satellite that ISRO has launched from foreign stations like Kourou in French Guyana,"

Indian satellites launched from foreign soil have been insured with New India Assurance, a public sector Indian company that has been the traditional insurer for ISRO's programmes.

For instance, ISRO had insured the Rs 250 crore (Rs.2.5 billion) INSAT-4A -- launched from Kourou by Arianespace -- for a premium amount of Rs 92 crore (Rs 920 million).Though New India Assurance issues the insurance policies to ISRO for foreign launches, the risk factor was taken care of by international re-insurer Spaceco of the Allianz group, which is the world's largest space insurer.

But why are satellite launches from Indian space stations not insured? - "The simple reason is that New India Assurance is a government company and ISRO is a government agency. The loss in a space disaster, in any way then, is the government's," pointed out a senior ISRO official. Insurance covers only the satellite and the mission cost.

ISRO sources said the launch cost of the INSAT-4C mission was around Rs 220 crore (Rs 2.2 billion), which included the satellite cost of Rs 96 crore (Rs 960 million). The remainder was the mission development cost.

In Western countries, he said, the insurance premium for satellites is over 25 per cent. Space insurance, he pointed out, was a relatively new area in India. And because the risk involved is huge and complex, not many private insurance companies have taken keen interest on it.

To tackle the problem of space disasters, ISRO is also planning alternative approaches to insurance.One such idea is to build up in-orbit spare satellites so that even if one satellite fails, the spare one is put in place.

"We can develop extra satellites with the hefty insurance premiums that we have to pay insurance companies each year," an ISRO official said.

Incidentally, ISRO has received insurance compensation from satellites launched from foreign soil when the INSAT 1A and 1C failed, and the INSAT 2D died in orbit. The apex Indian space agency got about Rs 240 crore (Rs 2.4 billion) as insurance compensation for the failure of INSAT-2D.

nits · Post by **nits** » 27 Dec 2010 14:05

^^ On a lighter note Chinese will never go for international insurance; as others will know if launch fails...

ASPuar · Post by **ASPuar** » 27 Dec 2010 14:23

Wish there was some way I could tell the guys at ISRO... "Dont worry, bash on regardless!"

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 27 Dec 2010 15:27

Was is Edison (??)who said, Dont say that I have failed a 1000 times. Say that I have learn't 1000 way of not doing things in a particular way.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 27 Dec 2010 16:09

** Deleted **

arunsrinivasan · Post by **arunsrinivasan** » 27 Dec 2010 16:15

** Deleted **

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 27 Dec 2010 16:15

http://www.livemint.com/2010/12/2621355 ... ts-at.html

...
Scientific experts say that because the recent failures of the GSLV involved components that were common to the PSLV, the snags were likely to be more “engineering-related” and less about a fundamental lack of understanding about the technology.

“The stage at which failure took place is well understood, as it’s common to the PSLV rockets too. It must have been more engineering-related—and here even small errors are hugely magnified and may slip through even the most thorough checks—and unlikely a serious, conceptual worry. By comparison, the April failure was much bigger when the engine itself failed to ignite,” said P.S. Goel, a former Isro scientist.

U.R. Rao, a former Isro chairman, concurred and added that the Chandraayan II mission planned for 2013 wasn’t likely to be compromised.

narayana · Post by **narayana** » 27 Dec 2010 16:51

** Deleted **

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 27 Dec 2010 17:02

nits wrote:
ashokpachori wrote:In india only govermnet insurance companies go for space launch insurance

And which is that GOI company?
Check this Link - Details below

Indian Space Research Organisation spokesperson S Krishnamurthy confirmed - "We have not insured satellites that are launched from India. But we have insured every satellite that ISRO has launched from foreign stations like Kourou in French Guyana,"

Indian satellites launched from foreign soil have been insured with New India Assurance, a public sector Indian company that has been the traditional insurer for ISRO's programmes.

I had already mentioned about it (New India Insurance) while replying to Austin post.

ashokpachori · Post by **ashokpachori** » 27 Dec 2010 17:17

Heavier payload caused Indian rocket’s failure: Expert

“The cable snapping was the effect (of the GSLV breaking) and not the cause of the mishap,” he maintained.

“The cable joints cannot snap just like that,” the scientist told IANS. He said the connectors are locked so well they cannot snap unless the vehicle itself breaks.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/bus ... 79707.html

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 27 Dec 2010 22:23

^^^ Jeez...!! More speculation from ex-ISRO and unamed ISRO sources. I really dont know if this is a useful/helpful thing. The media reporters (with their urge to publish something quickly) can be expected to go after any one who has a reasonable background, but I wish engineers with actual credentials show a bit more circumspection when talking to media. There was an earlier report from Deccan Chronicle (link in previous page) where D. Sasikumar, ex-ISRO said: 'I got a feeling (sic!!) that the strap-on rockets of the first stage got detached' followed by 'This is the most stupid thing to have happened to a space mission of this magnitude'. There were other comments published in other news reports about 'simple errors' and 'trivial errors'. Pre-mature and pejorative comments like these are not useful at all.

I think it is OK for (un-credentialed) people on a public forum like BR to speculate, but coming from serving and ex-ISRO people it carries more weight and the janta at large will believe it. I cannot imagine it makes the life of current ISRO team, which is answerable to the media, any easier to counter such extraneous stuff being published. They are under a national microscope right now. Radhakrishnan (/ISRO) has been pretty upfront and is talking to the media and they have a lot of work to do. He should be given space he (and ISRO) needs....no pun intended there!

Just my two cents......

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 27 Dec 2010 23:55

1. I wish ISRO scientists - ALL of them would not speak to the media and give them snippets. There has to be one designated official giving out the official media update. This happens.
2. The problem is - that the cook at the mess hall and the one who sweeps the launch pad are also experts by now. And DDM can report their opinions as those from a senior source.

No point speculating...

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 28 Dec 2010 03:36

They added three tons of propellant to the cryogenic stage and increased the height of the vehicle, all contributing to the center of gravity of the vehicle rising up from previous flights, but the four degree of tolerance for attitude control of the vehicle didn't change making the flight at a higher risk for instability

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 28 Dec 2010 12:37

We will now review GSLV programme: ISRO
T.S. Subramanian

SRIHARIKOTA: The disaster that struck the Geo-synchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV-F06) on Saturday will not affect the transponder augmentation for the continuance of telecommunication, telecasting and weather forecasting services provided by the Indian National Satellite (INSAT) system, K. Radhakrishnan, Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), said here.

The GSLV-F06 was to have put in orbit GSAT-5P with 36 transponders that would have boosted India's telecommunication, telecasting, tele-education, telemedicine and banking services. But the vehicle, after 50 seconds of flights, lost control, broke up into pieces and was destroyed in mid-flight.

Dr. Radhakrishnan said a series of communication satellites would be launched in the coming years to boost the country's communication and telecasting services. The GSAT-8, having 24 transponders, would be launched by the European Space Agency's Ariane rocket from French-Guyana in March-April 2011.

These would be followed by the launch of GSAT-10 and GSAT-9. Next to follow would be GSAT-12, a smaller communication satellite that would be put in orbit by the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle from Sriharikota.

The ISRO Chairman, however, said: “we will now review the GSLV programme” since a GSLV of the same class was needed to put Chandrayaan-2 into orbit in 2013-14. While India would build the Chandrayaan-2 and the rover that would drive about on the Moon's soil, Russia would provide the lander, which would land the rover on the lunar soil. “The Russians are happy with the [Chandrayaan-2] programme so far,” he said.

The ISRO would launch a Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV-C16) from Sriharikota in the first week of February 2011. The rocket would put in orbit India's Resourcesat-2, Youthsat with payloads from Russia and India, and X-Sat from Singapore.

On the failure of the GSLV-F06, Dr. Radhakrishnan said its performance was normal for 50 seconds after the lift-off. “Soon afterwards, the vehicle's attitude was increasing, leading to heavier structural loads, higher angle of attack and breaking up of the vehicle.”

The Range Safety Officer in the Mission Control Centre gave the ‘destruct' command to the vehicle 63 seconds after the lift-off from its second launch pad and it was destroyed.

The vehicle lost control because there were indications that four connectors (chords) that take the signal to the first stage for controlling the rocket could have snapped. “What happened and why it happened, we have to find out. We will get into the details,” Dr. Radhakrishnan said. He asserted that there was no problem with the GSLV's design. “It was only [due to] some accident that the connector snapped,” he said. He was sure the problem would be overcome because “we learn from failures.”

Not a major problem

Director of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre in Thiruvananthapuram P.S. Veeraragahvan asserted that it was “not a major problem because the vehicle's design was not an issue. It was a problem of the connector snapping.”

SSSalvi · Post by **SSSalvi** » 28 Dec 2010 15:41

SriKumar wrote:^^^ Jeez...!! More speculation from ex-ISRO and unamed ISRO sources. I really dont know if this is a useful/helpful thing. The media reporters (with their urge to publish something quickly) can be expected to go after any one who has a reasonable background, but I wish engineers with actual credentials show a bit more circumspection when talking to media. There was an earlier report from Deccan Chronicle (link in previous page) where D. Sasikumar, ex-ISRO said: 'I got a feeling (sic!!) that the strap-on rockets of the first stage got detached' followed by 'This is the most stupid thing to have happened to a space mission of this magnitude'. There were other comments published in other news reports about 'simple errors' and 'trivial errors'. Pre-mature and pejorative comments like these are not useful at all.

I think it is OK for (un-credentialed) people on a public forum like BR to speculate, but coming from serving and ex-ISRO people it carries more weight and the janta at large will believe it. I cannot imagine it makes the life of current ISRO team, which is answerable to the media, any easier to counter such extraneous stuff being published. They are under a national microscope right now. Radhakrishnan (/ISRO) has been pretty upfront and is talking to the media and they have a lot of work to do. He should be given space he (and ISRO) needs....no pun intended there!

Just my two cents......

True that one should not speculate from TV visuals especially an ex ISRO person.

From the TV visuals, I got a feeling that the strap-on rockets of the first stage got detached within seconds of lift-off,” Mr Kumar said.

But it comes from the mouth of the person who headed the unit that designs and manufactures rockets of ISRO and must have witnessed several launches from SHAR.

dinesha · Post by **dinesha** » 28 Dec 2010 16:28

India plans to launch 30 satellites in next decade
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 178124.cms

BANGALORE: India is mulling to launch at least 30 earth observation satellites in the next one decade, a senior official at the Department of Space (DoS) said on Tuesday.

"We expect not less than 30 satellites," director of the Hyderabad-based National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC), under the DoS Dr V Jayaraman said. NRSC is responsible for remote sensing, satellite data acquisition and processing, data dissemination, aerial remote sensing and decision support for disaster management. In a plan already drawn up for the next ten years, Indian Space Research Organisation would launch a series of Resourcesat, Cartosat, ocean and atmospheric satellites. This would include Cartosat-3 with 30 cm resolution, he said. "We will launch Resourcesat-2 in early February or ending January. It will be a replacement satellite for Resourcesat-1 which gives us 5.8 metres, 70 km multi-spectral data for the first time," Jayaraman said.

He said ISRO was setting up an integrated multi-mission ground segment in Hyderabad at an investment of Rs 35 crore to Rs 40 crore which is expected to be operational in June next. In this single ground station (segment), ISRO would be able to receive all the satellite data "making the (space) products in such a way that every day we will supply 1000 products to the users directly." Now, NRSC is in a position to deliver space products within four-five days of receiving the data. This new ground segment would enable it to do it within 12 hours and supply "emergency products" within one hour.

Earlier, inaugurating a state-level conference on Karnataka State Geospatial Database, organised by the Karnataka State Remote Sensing Applications Centre, Jayaraman stressed that GIS (geographic information system) and remote sensing experts need to leverage the power of cloud computing.

akash_k · Post by **akash_k** » 28 Dec 2010 19:36

Did India goof up on GSLV

Two days after ISRO’s geosynchronous satellite launch vehicle (GSLV) mission failed, the agency is now trying to figure out what went wrong with the rocket.

The agency, initially, wondered whether it was the failure of an actuator or the snapping of the first stage connectors that led to the second consecutive failure of the (GSLV) on Christmas day; but the scientists are now thinking whether five days was too short to correct the defect that was first noticed on December 20.

The GSLV mission was postponed from December 20 – when a ‘minor’ leak in one of the valves of the Russian cryogenic engine as detected – to December 25, when it failed.

Sources in ISRO told DNA that when a leak in the upper stage cryogenic engine (the last stage engine that takes the capsule carrying the satellite to its predetermined location in space) was plugged, an overall check of the first stage, too, should have been conducted to ensure a successful launch.

“But five days was not enough to do all that; and, obviously, it now appears that we overlooked the problem in the first stage itself,” said a scientist involved with the mission.

The GSLV-F06 rocket, carrying the advanced Rs125 crore GSAT-5P communication satellite lacked thrust and veered off course barely 50 seconds after the 4.04pm lift-off on December 25, forcing the scientists at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota to press the self-destruct button and explode the satellite. This happened 63 seconds after lift-off.

Interestingly, the very first attempt to launch the GSLV programme on March 28, 2001, was also aborted a second before lift-off due to a snag.

It was rescheduled for April 18, 2001 – 21 days after the original date – when it was successfully launched to mark the beginning of India’s GSLV series of launchers. The problem then was the lack of thrust due to defective plumbing in one of the four first stage strap-on engines.

However, former ISRO chairman and current chairman of governing council of Physical Research Laboratory (PRL), Ahmedabad, Prof UR Rao told DNA that everything had been monitored and that the problem arose seconds after the launch, catching the scientists unawares.

“The actuator seems to have failed to receive commands from the onboard computer of the rocket,” he said. The actuators are linked with the rocket motor, the failure of which may have caused GSLV-F06 to veer off course and break up.

ISRO chairman K Radhakrishnan said the scientists were also verifying whether it was the snapping of first stage connectors of the GSLV-F06 that led to the failure of the mission.

“There are hundreds of pages of data pertaining to a few seconds after the lift-off that the scientists have to study. Only then can we arrive at the precise problem that led to aborting the mission,” said Prof Rao.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_di ... lv_1487223

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 28 Dec 2010 20:16

If engineers working hands on with the mission has claimed that following the delay the 1st stage was not checked too, how can a governing council chair at prl make a statement he made in the quote above ? Some people never want to leave the limelight even in semi-retirement.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Dec 2010 21:06

ISRO must evolve into CMM setup like NASA. Engineering process maturity is vital for the organization survival. They can brilliant scientists, and managers, but if failures are not anticipated, then no rocket science would help.

Going for a review after a disaster speaks volume on the type of process maturity of any organization.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 28 Dec 2010 21:14

SaiK wrote:ISRO must evolve into CMM setup like NASA. Engineering process maturity is vital for the organization survival. They can brilliant scientists, and managers, but if failures are not anticipated, then no rocket science would help.

Going for a review after a disaster speaks volume on the type of process maturity of any organization.

The same "CMM set up NASA" killed their space shuttlers because they couldnt get the shields right and horror of horrors went for a review after the disaster.
They have so much process maturity that 50 years after sending humans to moon, they cant do it because they "forgot" and lost the skill.

shows what all those certifications mean.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 28 Dec 2010 21:19

Forgetting and losing the skill is a classified degradation of process maturity.
BTW, I was giving an example, and there is nothing wrong in ISRO achieving process maturity and continue to maintain it. Failure management is what I was talking -- meaning no firefighting but plan for the reasonable fire you can take.

Virupaksha · Post by **Virupaksha** » 28 Dec 2010 21:29

Saik,

I cringed for this particular statement of yours.

ISRO must evolve into CMM setup like NASA.

Saw so many variations of it. The above being one typical example of when the west/US does it, it is us, SDRE who defend them. If we dont defend our ISRO against NASA who will?