GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Sridhar, I agree that it will not be a small change but neither it will be as big as moving from GSLV-2 to GSLV-3. Further even with GSLV-3 we seem to be in a hurry to move to Semi Cryo tech. ISRO not only as mandate to develop technology for future but also for current needs. PSLV is so useful as not only its payload improved but also due to advances in technology the weight of electronics on Low Orbit sats decreased.
On the other hand, due to telecom revolution sweeping the world, the commercial GTO sats are becoming heavier. Our own INSAT has reached 4.5 tons and even GSLV-Mark-3 may be inadequate. The commercial sats have reached 5-7 tons internationally. Therefore even for GSLV-3 we should start working on configurations with 4 solid fueled S200 boosters rather than only 2 as of now.
Needless to say, improving every engine for instance by using composites would be fast way forward.
On the other hand, due to telecom revolution sweeping the world, the commercial GTO sats are becoming heavier. Our own INSAT has reached 4.5 tons and even GSLV-Mark-3 may be inadequate. The commercial sats have reached 5-7 tons internationally. Therefore even for GSLV-3 we should start working on configurations with 4 solid fueled S200 boosters rather than only 2 as of now.
Needless to say, improving every engine for instance by using composites would be fast way forward.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
OT, this technology denial continues in the form of MTCR and many other alphabet-soup regulations. India is also kept away from geostrategically disruptive tech like long range bomber aircraft, which is one of two military hardware (the other being the SSBN-SLBM combo) making the SFC relevant.Acharya wrote:Hiding of information, monopolising and commoditizing knowledge and deep secrecy about technology have always been the most potent weapons of all western powers.
Britain and Spain rose to super power status based on their naval superiority. they remained powerful, not because they were great, but because they, very successfully prevented the emergence of Asian naval powers (google Mughal navy). before nuclear power, areal superiority was everything. the most high priority targets in the second world war (US vs Japan) were Japanese aircraft manufacturing installations. then came nuclear power.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
India was the target for all of these international treaty. The international treaty dont bind the big powers and India was ambushed with CTBT, NPT etc. Indian elites did not take care of Indian national interest.Klaus wrote:OT, this technology denial continues in the form of MTCR and many other alphabet-soup regulations. India is also kept away from geostrategically disruptive tech like long range bomber aircraft, which is one of two military hardware (the other being the SSBN-SLBM combo) making the SFC relevant.Acharya wrote:Hiding of information, monopolising and commoditizing knowledge and deep secrecy about technology have always been the most potent weapons of all western powers.
Britain and Spain rose to super power status based on their naval superiority. they remained powerful, not because they were great, but because they, very successfully prevented the emergence of Asian naval powers (google Mughal navy). before nuclear power, areal superiority was everything. the most high priority targets in the second world war (US vs Japan) were Japanese aircraft manufacturing installations. then came nuclear power.
India was being monitored for all tech inputs for more than 60 years and all the major powers including Russia coordinated to keep India down for many decades. This is a classic international ambush never done even in Europe before the WWs.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
From ISRO FB page
I believe this is the final maneuver. Good job ISROMission Status: GSLV-D5/GSAT-14 mission
The Third Orbit Raising Maneuver has been SUCCESSFULLY executed from ISRO's Master Control Facility, Hassan. The initial data shows the orbit of GSAT-14 as 35,462 km (Perigee) by 35, 741 km Apogee with 0.25 degree inclination.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 598
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
How ISRO developed the indigenous cryogenic engine
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 575364.cms
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 575364.cms
The year was 1987. V Gnanagandhi, head of the cryogenic engine project at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), wanted to set up a high-pressure hydrogen plant in Mahendragiri near Thiruvanathapuram. But an official from the supplier of the machinery, a German company called Messers Grieshem, suddenly threw a spanner in the works. "There are snakes and elephants on the roads in India," he told them. "How can I come there?"
Gnanagandhi reached a compromise with the Grieshem executive. He need come only as far as Mumbai; the entire ISRO team would meet him there. He agreed. The German—his name is now forgotten—agreed to sell the machinery, but was also inquisitive. "Why do you need a high-pressure hydrogen facility?" he asked. "We are using it to launch rockets," came the answer. "You cannot just fill an engine tank with high-pressure hydrogen," he told the ISRO team. "It will evaporate in no time." The ISRO engineers......
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
So now it would drift to final parking space.saravana wrote:From ISRO FB page
I believe this is the final maneuver. Good job ISROMission Status: GSLV-D5/GSAT-14 mission
The Third Orbit Raising Maneuver has been SUCCESSFULLY executed from ISRO's Master Control Facility, Hassan. The initial data shows the orbit of GSAT-14 as 35,462 km (Perigee) by 35, 741 km Apogee with 0.25 degree inclination.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 575364.cmsISRO's cryogenic team made the first 7.5-tonne engine in 2000. It blew up while being tested. The hydrogen valve had prematurely closed, affecting the oxygenhydrogen ratio in the combustion chamber. "We became failure-hardened," says Mohammed Mulsim, head of the cryogenic project at that time. "After each failure we went back not to the Russian engines but to the drawing board."
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
And, finally, it gave a superlative, flawless performance. ISRO has this first failure jinx.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
vic wrote:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 575364.cmsISRO's cryogenic team made the first 7.5-tonne engine in 2000. It blew up while being tested. The hydrogen valve had prematurely closed, affecting the oxygenhydrogen ratio in the combustion chamber. "We became failure-hardened," says Mohammed Mulsim, head of the cryogenic project at that time. "After each failure we went back not to the Russian engines but to the drawing board."
When it flew, the GSLV put the satellite into orbit with a precision never possible with the Russian engines.
from comments
The specific impulse(Isp), which tells us the quality or efficiency of the rocket, of CE 7.5(our cryogenic engine) is 454 seconds. Compare the upper stage cryogenic engines of different countries. In this aspect, it is better than Ariane 5 ESC-A stage HM7B engine, better than the Atlas 5 Centaur RL10A-4-1 engine, better than the Long March YF75 engine and also better than Japan's LE-5B-2 engine. I am sure if we can build bigger cryogenic engines and also replace our lower stages with semi-cryoge ..
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2178
- Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Probably, but that's because India was more advanced, and 'ambitious'( for lack of a better word) than the other developing countries in the area of strategic technologies.Acharya wrote:Klaus wrote:Hiding of information, monopolising and commoditizing knowledge and deep secrecy about
India was the target for all of these international treaty. The international treaty dont bind the big powers and India was ambushed with CTBT, NPT etc. Indian elites did not take care of Indian national interest.
India was being monitored for all tech inputs for more than 60 years and all the major powers including Russia coordinated to keep India down for many decades. This is a classic international ambush never done even in Europe before the WWs.
The US and its cronies would not have liked Mexico to have long range missiles, nuclear weapons capability and medium-heavy satellite lift vehicles. Nor Nigeria, Zaire, Indonesia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela or Brazil.
Africa would not have been allowed( in those years, and even now largely) to even get off the ground, despite their very rich resources. While the "Western" group, and even Russia, would moan and grunt about India developing capacities, and throw obstacles in India's path, they would unequivocally prevent Africa from touching strategic technology. It would only come about, even conceivably, if they( the French in West Africa, or the Americans and Brits in Nigeria, Tanzania, Zaire, for example) had full control over anything supplied to Africa, and were running the equipment and plants, with Africans as clerks and support staff at best.
Compared to this scenario, India's had it pretty good, don't you think?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 3167
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Depends on what gets accepted as - pretty good.Varoon Shekhar wrote: Compared to this scenario, India's had it pretty good, don't you think?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4311
- Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
This is Radhakrishnan's Kathakali look - expressive eyes (for those not in the know, he is a Kathakali practitioner)!
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
I had missed that announcement!TSJones wrote:Btw, the significance of a reliable design in upper-stages is understood only when one realizes that khan keeps stroking his Centaur stage since the 50s and calls it "my precious" for a reason Goddamn thing has been polished to a highly reliable state since that grand master of fun designs, Karel Bossart dreamed up those stainless steel balloon tanks. The only thing they kept changing are the payload attachment thingies' diameter. Bossart's baby is as much a crown jewel of khan's space crown, as the more glamorous SSME and saturn V engines
....not only that the space droids here in the US (including me) are furious over the suspension of the J-2x engine for the upper stage SLS orion rocket package. They're going back to the 1950's RL10 upper stage engine. They said the J-2x was too powerful and not needed for the next 10 tears.
The stories of NASA bringing back the Saturn V (F-1) engines and the young engineers who are helping (http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/ ... k-to-life/ part of NASA Advanced Booster competition) are fascinating.
I assume RL-60 development as potential replacement for RL-10 (Centaur) (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-370660/) is still back on ? Or has the J2-X announcement (replacing it by clustered RL-10) put RL-60 on the shelf yet again ?
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Acharya, your graphic says Russia's first successful flight using a cryogenic engine was 1987. Really? DDMitis?
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Actually it should be even later than that. Their first cryo engine flew on the first flight of the GSLV. It was designed, fabricated and tested but never powered a stage until the GSLV.Anant wrote:Acharya, your graphic says Russia's first successful flight using a cryogenic engine was 1987. Really? DDMitis?
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
That is correct. Now figure why PRC got it before RussiaAnant wrote:Acharya, your graphic says Russia's first successful flight using a cryogenic engine was 1987. Really? DDMitis?
Also why does PRC import western parts for all strategic needs?
----
I was waiting who would catch this info
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
I thought that the first Russian Cryo flew with Energia/Buran. So it is not DDMitis, it was indeed 1987.merlin wrote:Actually it should be even later than that. Their first cryo engine flew on the first flight of the GSLV. It was designed, fabricated and tested but never powered a stage until the GSLV.Anant wrote:Acharya, your graphic says Russia's first successful flight using a cryogenic engine was 1987. Really? DDMitis?
The Chinese did have a cryo first with its small cryo stage/engine that flew in Long March 3. With its CE-7.5/CE-20 ISRO is not far behind. Of course ISRO needs to scale its CE-20 to some CE-60 or CE-75.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Acharya wrote: ...Also why does PRC import western parts for all strategic needs?...
----
I was waiting who would catch this info
Why? Any links? Or experience you can share?
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
The Chinese cryogenic research began way back in 1966 IIRC. The YF-73 cryogenic engine was launched successfully in '83 and flew 13 missions, failing in 4. It took them 10 years to get to a reliable working engine, i.e. YF-75.
PS: Is it true to LH facility in Mahendragiri was built by the Americans?
PS: Is it true to LH facility in Mahendragiri was built by the Americans?
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Doubt it. The Russians helped out with the cryogenic handling facilities in SHAR iirc.. You can do a copy paste at Mahendragiri. Why do you need the Americans for that anyway ?PS: Is it true to LH facility in Mahendragiri was built by the Americans?
The top companies there for that kind of thing are any way Air Liquide /Linde and and other Oieros.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
^^
Brian Harvey's History of New Space Powers
Apparently, in the late 80s. the Americans were trying to peddle their cryo engine + tech transfer while India was trying to acquire the LE-5 from Japan. It was only when the Russians won, after 4 years of our Bania haggling, that the Americans rediscovered their moral code.
BTW, w.r.t to China "overtaking" the USSR in cryogenic engine tech, the Russian KVD-1, which was offered to India was actually tested qute successfully in the early 70s! The Hindu article is misleading. This engine was earmarked for the Soviet Moon Landing Mission but was never used because the program was cancelled. The Russians relied on Kerosene-LOX and kept the cryogenic engine in the Cold Storage till 1987. We chose the old KVD-1 because of it's comparatively easier-to-master tech and it's efficiency.
Brian Harvey's History of New Space Powers
Apparently, in the late 80s. the Americans were trying to peddle their cryo engine + tech transfer while India was trying to acquire the LE-5 from Japan. It was only when the Russians won, after 4 years of our Bania haggling, that the Americans rediscovered their moral code.
BTW, w.r.t to China "overtaking" the USSR in cryogenic engine tech, the Russian KVD-1, which was offered to India was actually tested qute successfully in the early 70s! The Hindu article is misleading. This engine was earmarked for the Soviet Moon Landing Mission but was never used because the program was cancelled. The Russians relied on Kerosene-LOX and kept the cryogenic engine in the Cold Storage till 1987. We chose the old KVD-1 because of it's comparatively easier-to-master tech and it's efficiency.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
It was successfully BENCH TESTED in the 70s, but was actually FLIGHT TESTED only in GSLV. So yes, we served as guinea pigs for another Russian engine.AnandK wrote:which was offered to India was actually tested qute successfully in the early 70s
But truth be told, this bench testing was a departure from Soviet practice, which is to just build and fire and keep tweaking from the learning from each failure until you perfect and then NEVER change anything at all!
This bench tested business onree, came to bite us in the a*se. The first GSLV flight, the russian stage underperformed, the last one with the spectacular blowup happened was due to the shroud of the Russian stage collapsing under load (basically a design fault).
To repeat what you quoted earlier , in the immortal words of a BRFite from Mumbai, it is a perfect case of
with the Russian engine!Bade Mian today , Bade motions tomorrow!
Bade Saar, is not going to like it one bit of course!
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
I have not heard of any progress on the rl-60. Sorry. Everything seems to be in cut back mode at NASA. They want to make do with what they have for their missions. The problem with space development is escalating cost. Thus the push for commercialization for LEO orbit missions. NASA wants to get out of that business. Altough they are asking to extend the life of the ISS for 4 more years to 2024.barath_s wrote: I had missed that announcement!
The stories of NASA bringing back the Saturn V (F-1) engines and the young engineers who are helping (http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/ ... k-to-life/ part of NASA Advanced Booster competition) are fascinating.
I assume RL-60 development as potential replacement for RL-10 (Centaur) (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-370660/) is still back on ? Or has the J2-X announcement (replacing it by clustered RL-10) put RL-60 on the shelf yet again ?
In December Space X launched the first commercial satellite from cape canaveral since 2009 when ULA priced themselves out of commercial launches. Space x has a book of business for 50 commercial launches in the next few years. Worth billions.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
the russian N1 proposed manned lunar rocket is worth a look on youtube. frighteningly complex with a mass of small rockets at the bottom. glad they didnt proceed to human payloads with that one.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
The key phrase here is "IMO" ... This is not the thread for the discussion on the subject. Move it to another thread, maybe the Off Topic thread. I will delete all related posts here. Separately, while the standards of the forum may not be quite up to yours, and while we do welcome newcomers, it may be advisable to get off on the right foot lest the welcome quickly turn into goodbye JE Menonanand_sankar wrote:If the mods feel if it is off topic, take it off or take it wherever. I only posted it here because it is relevant and my response was triggered by the last launch.
I have been on BRF for few years now. I don't post or reply unless I have something useful to add. Check the history. IMO its far more pertinent that some of the crap that people post here.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 6046
- Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
- Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Well, crap for one can be a bloom of knowledge for someone else? I find your post crap and frankly a flame bait (seriously I think the magazines and publications you claim to write for need to do some basic quality check on what they publish)Anand Sankar wrote: have been on BRF for few years now. I don't post or reply unless I have something useful to add. Check the history. IMO its far more pertinent that some of the crap that people post here.
Since you say you are interested in "space science" , why dont you stick to posting about science here, oh I need to remind you however that Political "Science" and Social "Science" dont qualify as science. That way, we can stick to somethings that are objective, verifiable, testable and all the good things that come with real science (for eg, 2+2 =4 always) and not some wooly headed opinions and ramblings and stuff that pass for intellectual discourse in India especially with the Pretend "Science" (Political, social etc) kind of folks (oh, 2+2 can be anywhere between 1.75 to 2.25 based on relativistic assumptions. Ancient Indians though that it was 2.03, while modern sciences believe it is absolute and deterministic..yada. yada.. yada.. .you know the routine)
-
- BRFite -Trainee
- Posts: 49
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
This was the last news I had of the RL-60. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-370660/)TSJones wrote: I have not heard of any progress on the rl-60. Sorry. .
Since your reply, I found this recent proposal to enhance sls by using the MB-60 (derivative of RL-60 with mitsibishi involvement). But unclear if it means anything on actual status (especially since J2x mentioned is also in the proposal).
Re: ULA lack of recent commercial success.- I hadn't particularly noticed it, given the cost disadvantage and number of dod payloads and nasa(quasi-commercial now?). But there's a commercial Atlas 5 launch scheduled this year (http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/) for digitalglobe.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Thanks for the links. I think ULA has finally woke up and realized that Space X is taking the sandwich right out of their mouths.barath_s wrote:This was the last news I had of the RL-60. (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-370660/)TSJones wrote: I have not heard of any progress on the rl-60. Sorry. .
Since your reply, I found this recent proposal to enhance sls by using the MB-60 (derivative of RL-60 with mitsibishi involvement). But unclear if it means anything on actual status (especially since J2x mentioned is also in the proposal).
Re: ULA lack of recent commercial success.- I hadn't particularly noticed it, given the cost disadvantage and number of dod payloads and nasa(quasi-commercial now?). But there's a commercial Atlas 5 launch scheduled this year (http://spaceflightnow.com/tracking/) for digitalglobe.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
what it means post D5 launch for me is, India + Japan can essentially replace Brits in the P5 club. (just nudging them onlee - in the weight class and performance, and future business).. Japan again a rider for strategic ops against one of the east ward looking long time enemy of ours.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Err TSJ et al, this thread is about the Indian GSLV no?
So dont post other material here.
Thanks, ramana
Deccan Chronicle:
Interview with K. Radhakrishanan, Chairman, ISRO:
We have succeeded with our cryogenic engine:ISRO
So dont post other material here.
Thanks, ramana
Deccan Chronicle:
Interview with K. Radhakrishanan, Chairman, ISRO:
We have succeeded with our cryogenic engine:ISRO
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
I have a question regarding the cyro-engines. Is it necessary to have the cyroengines to launch heavy satellites into GEO? I noticed that in other programs, they didn't go down the route of LOX/LH2 but kerosene and others.
If that is the case, why didn't DRDO take that route and use the success to build the cyro-engine variants along with solid/kerosene rockets?
If that is the case, why didn't DRDO take that route and use the success to build the cyro-engine variants along with solid/kerosene rockets?
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Yes. The heaviest payloads require the last stage to be the most efficient. Cryo engines are very efficient and have high specific impulse ~440 while plain liquids ~280 at best. Soilds are worse.
DRDO is military agency and is not revelant to the topic.
ISRO is the space agency. They chose to master solids for the small payloads and went for liquid fuelled PSLV in a get the quickest to space approach.* Now that the minimum requirements are met they are going for cryo to get bigger and better payloads.
* There were competing trade studies to make a Kerosene /LOX engine early on but fell out of favor as the French Ariane program allowed India to contribute to the Viking engine which developed into the Vikas engine.
DRDO is military agency and is not revelant to the topic.
ISRO is the space agency. They chose to master solids for the small payloads and went for liquid fuelled PSLV in a get the quickest to space approach.* Now that the minimum requirements are met they are going for cryo to get bigger and better payloads.
* There were competing trade studies to make a Kerosene /LOX engine early on but fell out of favor as the French Ariane program allowed India to contribute to the Viking engine which developed into the Vikas engine.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Ramana,
Thanks for answering my question and apologies for mixing up DRDO with ISRO.
Has ISRO ever worked with kerosene? It seems that Kerosene is a simpler fuel to work with than LOX/LH2. I mean, after all, kerosene was the fuel that powered Apollo rockets and could launch huge vehicles. I am trying to understand why ISRO didn't go through the routes that US and Russia did to launch heavy payloads into orbit. I mean look at Soyuz and other US manned rockets- they didn't use LOX/LH2 (correct me if I am wrong) and used kerosene instead.
Thanks for answering my question and apologies for mixing up DRDO with ISRO.
Has ISRO ever worked with kerosene? It seems that Kerosene is a simpler fuel to work with than LOX/LH2. I mean, after all, kerosene was the fuel that powered Apollo rockets and could launch huge vehicles. I am trying to understand why ISRO didn't go through the routes that US and Russia did to launch heavy payloads into orbit. I mean look at Soyuz and other US manned rockets- they didn't use LOX/LH2 (correct me if I am wrong) and used kerosene instead.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
LOX/RP-1 (kerosene) engines are still cryogenic - the LOX is held at cryogenic temperatures even if the kerosene is not. On the other hand, the Vikas engine driven by UDMH/DNTO neither required engineering for cryogenic temperatures, nor did they need a combustor, since the fuel is hypergolic.
The full cryo upper stage was a pressing need because of the few KVD-1s on hand. Having mastered a restartable, throttle-able full cryo engine, ISRO is probably much more confident now of getting a semi-cryo LOX/RP-1 design working soon.
Designing bigger engines also brings up problems associated with combustion stability within a large nozzle. The Saturn V's F-1 engines had the problem during development, and it took them time to figure out how to damp it. The Soviets addressed the problem with multiple smaller nozzles.
Interestingly, the Chinese do not seem to use any cryo engines in their man rated rocket - the CZ-2F uses UDMH/DNTO in every stage, including the boosters. Even the 3B and 3C, which serve as their heavy lifters, use UDMH/DNTO except in the last stage, which is a full cryo YF-75 that has about the same thrust as the CE7.5 .
The full cryo upper stage was a pressing need because of the few KVD-1s on hand. Having mastered a restartable, throttle-able full cryo engine, ISRO is probably much more confident now of getting a semi-cryo LOX/RP-1 design working soon.
Designing bigger engines also brings up problems associated with combustion stability within a large nozzle. The Saturn V's F-1 engines had the problem during development, and it took them time to figure out how to damp it. The Soviets addressed the problem with multiple smaller nozzles.
Interestingly, the Chinese do not seem to use any cryo engines in their man rated rocket - the CZ-2F uses UDMH/DNTO in every stage, including the boosters. Even the 3B and 3C, which serve as their heavy lifters, use UDMH/DNTO except in the last stage, which is a full cryo YF-75 that has about the same thrust as the CE7.5 .
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
- Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
Hypergolic fuels have a potential dual use, most of the earlier generation ICBMs and even SLBMs used the UDMH+N2O4 family propellants.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
However China was third country wiith cryogenic engine.
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
It seems from wiki leaks that ISRO purchased the design drawings of Ex-Soviet Semi Cryo from Ukrane. With technology base of engineering & manufacturing full cryo, the ULV should be a much shorter haul.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 1852
- Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14
Re: GSLV-D5 Launch status and post launch discussions
It was known before wiki leaks that Ukraine was helping with the Semi Cryo engine.